Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Elora · 05-15-2006, 08:03 PM

Does that mean you discount any type of qualitative research? That's one serious chunk of research you then throw out the window.

I understand the prejudice, but if the research doesn't back up the claim, I find it a dangerous claim to make. You seem to make it based solely on personal bias towards internet information, which isn't or shouldn't be good enough.

And I'm sure you corrected the mistake as soon as you found it, right? As I said in my previous post, one of the best features of Wikipedia is the discussion pages, and easy contest of content. Unlike other sources (among them, those treasured hardcopy books you hold in so high regard), the disputes are publicly available.

Please do. One example is hardly enough to disregard the world's largest encyclopaedia on, regardless of how much you distrust internet information.

Aha. You are willing to state the claim, but not willing to back it up. That seems rather onesided.

Which "authorities" is this? Do you have any evidence to back that one up? Nature is a recognized scientific magazine. Their research doesn't support your claim. So what "authorities" do? If the easy dismissal of the source is true, then it should be easy enough to back up the claim.

This is the most curious statement of them all. What makes you think hardcopy books are automatically better and more reliable sources of information than electronic ones? Because it "seems" more real? Because books tend to be written by people with a specific interest in a topic? Interestingly, so do Wikipedia, and unlike books, Wikipedia publicly displays disputed facts through their discussion pages, allowing the reader to know both sides of a matter. The fact that this is not possible through hardcopy books does not make the library resource more accurate or factual.

It is true that Wikipedia have had some high profile scandals (well one, at least, that I can think of). Interestingly, most of the large "academically recognized" encyclopaedia have had similar scandals. - except they were not as public. I'm also sure I am not the only one that knows a score of examples of scientific swindle, manipulation and error in research either.

I am not married to Wikipedia, nor do I have any particular personal interest in the source. I just hate sources of information refuted on personal bias alone. As I said earlier, I would be very interested to know if any of you know of serious scientific research that supprts the claim of Wikipedia as inaccurate and unreliable. If the claim is purely made to dismiss an argument that cannot be refuted in any other way it seems, honestly, a little cheap.

I'll stop hijacking the thread now. Ironically, I agree that historically there are scores of examples of different attitudes towards both nudity and sexuality than the one common to most western civilization.

Then again, blaming Christianity alone is pretty unreasonable. There were several early Christian sects that practiced religious nudity as well. And it is not like Christianity is the only force throughout history that has tried to suppress open sexuality for various political reasons.

05-15-2006, 08:03 PM	#123
Elora New Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Currently Denmark Posts: 20	Does that mean you discount any type of qualitative research? That's one serious chunk of research you then throw out the window. I understand the prejudice, but if the research doesn't back up the claim, I find it a dangerous claim to make. You seem to make it based solely on personal bias towards internet information, which isn't or shouldn't be good enough. And I'm sure you corrected the mistake as soon as you found it, right? As I said in my previous post, one of the best features of Wikipedia is the discussion pages, and easy contest of content. Unlike other sources (among them, those treasured hardcopy books you hold in so high regard), the disputes are publicly available. Please do. One example is hardly enough to disregard the world's largest encyclopaedia on, regardless of how much you distrust internet information. Aha. You are willing to state the claim, but not willing to back it up. That seems rather onesided. Which "authorities" is this? Do you have any evidence to back that one up? Nature is a recognized scientific magazine. Their research doesn't support your claim. So what "authorities" do? If the easy dismissal of the source is true, then it should be easy enough to back up the claim. This is the most curious statement of them all. What makes you think hardcopy books are automatically better and more reliable sources of information than electronic ones? Because it "seems" more real? Because books tend to be written by people with a specific interest in a topic? Interestingly, so do Wikipedia, and unlike books, Wikipedia publicly displays disputed facts through their discussion pages, allowing the reader to know both sides of a matter. The fact that this is not possible through hardcopy books does not make the library resource more accurate or factual. It is true that Wikipedia have had some high profile scandals (well one, at least, that I can think of). Interestingly, most of the large "academically recognized" encyclopaedia have had similar scandals. - except they were not as public. I'm also sure I am not the only one that knows a score of examples of scientific swindle, manipulation and error in research either. I am not married to Wikipedia, nor do I have any particular personal interest in the source. I just hate sources of information refuted on personal bias alone. As I said earlier, I would be very interested to know if any of you know of serious scientific research that supprts the claim of Wikipedia as inaccurate and unreliable. If the claim is purely made to dismiss an argument that cannot be refuted in any other way it seems, honestly, a little cheap. I'll stop hijacking the thread now. Ironically, I agree that historically there are scores of examples of different attitudes towards both nudity and sexuality than the one common to most western civilization. Then again, blaming Christianity alone is pretty unreasonable. There were several early Christian sects that practiced religious nudity as well. And it is not like Christianity is the only force throughout history that has tried to suppress open sexuality for various political reasons.