Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1032Re: [ANE-2] Re: Wikipedia

Expand Messages
  • Ford Mommaerts-Browne
    Apr 5, 2006
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
      To: <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 9:16 AM
      Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Wikipedia

      | G.M. Grena wrote:
      | >
      | > > ANE2 is hardly the place to discuss the interpretation
      | > > of the Declaration of Independence of the United States.
      | (Anyway, the Declaration is not part of the law of the land.)

      I know that I am stepping off-topic here, but bare with me - there is a point to be made.
      The Declaration IS the law of the land, (if 'the land' is the USofA), because the US has 'Common Law', whereïn Custom gains the force of Law. In fact, the Declaration of Independence has been cited by courts to uphold or to overturn decisions, rulings or findings.
      Now, IF I didn't happen to see Prof. Daniels' comment; and IF I hadn't happened to have taken some law courses, (to become a more-roundly educated and [hopefully] better historian), where I learned a couple of things; and IF the moderators hadn't let this post through, (this is, of course, assuming that they do), then the rest of the readers of this post may have accepted that the DofI is NOT 'the law of the land'.
      We're starting to get a pretty iffy mound here. THIS is the problem with Wikipedia. Supercilious, self-appointed supervisors are given leeway to control content whereät they are not the experts who they present themselves as being. This is the 'best-case' scenario. The worst-case we have been redescribing at length. Yayhoos and _hoi polloi_, (or, as my coöperating teacher was wont to call them, 'The Great Unwashed'), can post any silly thing, and let it stand until somebody who knows better, (read 'other'), amends the tract.
      As an example: familysearch.org, the database of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, includes innumerable pedigrees tracing lineages through the Norse gods to the kings of Troy, through Jupiter, to Javan ben Japhet ben Noah, and on up to Adam, who was created by God. A very nice capstone to any family-tree. And the WWW has spread and proliferated this hodge-podge, this meaningless mishmash of mental masturbation, to genealogies all around the planet.

      ***Here's the bottom-line: There will be those who, seeing the problems and pitfalls with which the Wikipedia is fraught, will dismiss it, almost out-of-hand, and neither use it, nor endorse it. There will be those who will, seeing that potential promised by the Wikipediasts, give it a whirl; find that there is no real accountability, and minimal responsibility; have an extremely negative experience; and join the first group. Yet, there will still be those, with stars in their guileless eyes, who will continue to believe in the project, much as a long-suffering wife may continue to believe that her husband will take the pledge, and never touch liquor again. Rarely will members of groups one and two convince those of the third group; and, equally rarely, will those of group the third sway those of the first two groups.
      At this particular juncture, I suggest that we all agree to disagree, on this topic; and spend time on such where we may.
      Apologies for the lengthy post.
      T. Stanford Mommaerts-Browne, GNSN
      Omaha, Nebraska 68105-1310
      BA UNL (1986)
      BS UNL (1988)
      Scholar without Portfolio
      Secondary Social Sciences Teacher and Chef, by training
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic