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

Re: yet again Re: [ANE-2] Wikipedia and the sum of all knowledge

Expand Messages
  • John Wall
    From: Peter T. Daniels ... Britannica have taken Nature to task over that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4840340.stm All
    Message 1 of 14 , Apr 2, 2006
      From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
      > Oh, and don't cite me the study comparing the accuracy of wikipedia and
      > Encyclopaedia Britannica in certain areas of hard science. Even if
      > wikipedia were 100% accurate at some moment in time, it can be altered
      > at any moment.

      Britannica have taken Nature to task over that:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4840340.stm

      All the best,

      John Wall
      Omni Oratio Nil Labor
    • Paul James Cowie
      Regarding Peter Daniel s comments regarding Wikipedia.... Peter is absolutely correct when he identifies reliability as a key issue with regard to Wikipedia.
      Message 2 of 14 , Apr 2, 2006
        Regarding Peter Daniel's comments regarding Wikipedia....

        Peter is absolutely correct when he identifies reliability as a key
        issue with regard to Wikipedia. Of course, Wikipedia is not alone in
        this - most of the information currently available on the internet
        and a great many print publications bear the same burden.

        This is the reason behind the current push within the Wikimedia
        Foundation to promote the inclusion of reliable and scholarly
        citation of original research, as I mentioned briefly in my last post.

        Naturally, caveat lector also applies.... Naive and unquestioning
        readers of material freely and openly available always have and ever
        will use information in a less than appropriate fashion.... These
        problems can be assuaged by encouraging users of Wikipedia, for
        example, to examine not only the article itself, but also the article
        history and accompanying discussion pages.

        Like it or not, Wikipedia and projects of its type are apparently
        here to stay.... We can either condemn them as useless and
        ridiculous, or contribute in a meaningful way to their improvement in
        documentation and standards.

        -----------------------

        Paul James Cowie
        BA Hons (Sydney) GradDipEd MA (Macquarie) PhD in candidato

        London, England and Sydney, Australia

        Editor, http://www.ancientneareast.net/
        Area Supervisor, Tel Rehov Excavations, Israel

        PhD Candidate, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Macquarie
        University, Sydney, Australia
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: ANE-2 In Response To: Paul James Cowie et al On: Wikipedia From: Bruce PAUL: Like it or not, Wikipedia and projects of its type are apparently here to
        Message 3 of 14 , Apr 2, 2006
          To: ANE-2
          In Response To: Paul James Cowie et al
          On: Wikipedia
          From: Bruce

          PAUL: Like it or not, Wikipedia and projects of its type are apparently
          here to stay.... We can either condemn them as useless and ridiculous, or
          contribute in a meaningful way to their improvement in
          documentation and standards.

          BRUCE: I think the bottom line, the unsolvable problem, is that the
          contributions to improvement are at any moment liable to be overridden by
          contributions in the other direction. There is no filter to keep the content
          moving in an upward direction. The collaborative aspect of the design is not
          unpromising, and I quite agree that expertise does not always come with
          degrees. The problem to me (as to others) is the open nature of the
          collaboration. Nobody is minding the store.

          Given that situation, that Wiki has no means of making the best use of what
          comes in the door, and as long as it obtains, I think the responsible course
          must be to disrecommend it to those without their own means of judging its
          content. That is, to be able to read it safely, you should be qualified to
          write it.

          It is very hard for a group, even a coherent and motivated group, to get the
          best out of itself without a central ganglion of decision. I once shocked a
          class in Chinese by collecting their translations of a long passage at the
          end of the first hour, and telling them, Your assignment for the second hour
          is to produce a single translation of this same passage, by collaborating
          among yourselves in any way you can agree on.

          The result was a single translation that avoided some of the worst mistakes
          of the individual versions, but also fell short of the best of those
          versions.

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Research Professor of Chinese
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        • Peter T. Daniels
          ... Who s? ... Yet wikipedia has somehow come to be perceived as different. ... And what sanctions, exactly, can be imposed on those who don t? ... Which tell
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 2, 2006
            Paul James Cowie wrote:
            >
            > Regarding Peter Daniel's comments regarding Wikipedia....

            Who's?

            > Peter is absolutely correct when he identifies reliability as a key 
            > issue with regard to Wikipedia. Of course, Wikipedia is not alone in 
            > this - most of the information currently available on the internet 
            > and a great many print publications bear the same burden.

            Yet wikipedia has somehow come to be perceived as different.

            > This is the reason behind the current push within the Wikimedia 
            > Foundation to promote the inclusion of reliable and scholarly 
            > citation of original research, as I mentioned briefly in my last post.

            And what sanctions, exactly, can be imposed on those who don't?

            > Naturally, caveat lector also applies.... Naive and unquestioning 
            > readers of material freely and openly available always have and ever 
            > will use information in a less than appropriate fashion.... These 
            > problems can be assuaged by encouraging users of Wikipedia, for 
            > example, to examine not only the article itself, but also the article 
            > history and accompanying discussion pages.

            Which tell us _absolutely nothing_ about the reliability of the
            contributors.

            (Note that I do _not_ say "credentials.")

            > Like it or not, Wikipedia and projects of its type are apparently 
            > here to stay.... We can either condemn them as useless and 
            > ridiculous, or contribute in a meaningful way to their improvement in 
            > documentation and standards.

            The former is a far better use of our time.

            Stephen Jay Gould didn't debate Creationists.
            --
            Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
          • Paul James Cowie
            ... Who s? (sic) Who is what? Whose comments? - Yours, Peter.... ... Well, yes, Wikipedia is increasingly being perceived by many worldwide as an
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 2, 2006
              On 2 Apr 2006, at 16:34, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

              > Paul James Cowie wrote:
              > >
              > > Regarding Peter Daniel's comments regarding Wikipedia....
              >
              > Who's?

              "Who's?" (sic) Who is what? Whose comments? - Yours, Peter....

              >
              > > Peter is absolutely correct when he identifies reliability as a key
              > > issue with regard to Wikipedia. Of course, Wikipedia is not alone in
              > > this - most of the information currently available on the internet
              > > and a great many print publications bear the same burden.
              >
              > Yet wikipedia has somehow come to be perceived as different.

              Well, yes, Wikipedia is increasingly being perceived by many
              worldwide as an _increasingly_ reliable means of freely and easily
              acquiring up-to-date information _at the start_ of various
              enquiries.... It _is_ different, again, as the non-static Wikipedia -
              whilst it _can_ be momentarily compromised, damaged and vandalised -
              can also be cumulatively discussed, debated and improved on demand.

              >
              > > This is the reason behind the current push within the Wikimedia
              > > Foundation to promote the inclusion of reliable and scholarly
              > > citation of original research, as I mentioned briefly in my last
              > post.
              >
              > And what sanctions, exactly, can be imposed on those who don't?

              What sanctions would you suggest?

              >
              > > Naturally, caveat lector also applies.... Naive and unquestioning
              > > readers of material freely and openly available always have and ever
              > > will use information in a less than appropriate fashion.... These
              > > problems can be assuaged by encouraging users of Wikipedia, for
              > > example, to examine not only the article itself, but also the
              > article
              > > history and accompanying discussion pages.
              >
              > Which tell us _absolutely nothing_ about the reliability of the
              > contributors.
              >
              > (Note that I do _not_ say "credentials.")

              Yes, well, I do understand the distinction between reliability and
              credentials.... That, I think, was the central point of one of my
              recent posts....

              As regards reliability, well, there are a number of things that can
              be done immediately to enhance the value of user contributions....
              Not all of these are always in common practice, unfortunately, but
              hope for the future is high....

              First of all, a far greater number of scholars and academics could
              get behind the project, making contributions within their specialist
              areas. Keeping an article on your "watchlist" allows you easily to
              monitor any negative changes.

              Secondly, as I have campaigned for repeatedly on this very list,
              users have the ability to supply more than just the bare essentials
              of a user name and email address on their profile pages. Details of
              personal interests, research and affiliations will definfitely help
              to enhance confidence.

              I'm sure that there are other, more profound means of enhancing
              reliability and confidence that could (and no doubt will) be employed
              as the project matures. Perhaps you or others on-list could suggest
              something in this regard? (A system of article / section ratings,
              perhaps, to be employed by an editorial committee within a particular
              area?)

              >
              > > Like it or not, Wikipedia and projects of its type are apparently
              > > here to stay.... We can either condemn them as useless and
              > > ridiculous, or contribute in a meaningful way to their
              > improvement in
              > > documentation and standards.
              >
              > The former is a far better use of our time.

              You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

              >
              > Stephen Jay Gould didn't debate Creationists.
              > --
              > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...

              Please don't get me wrong. I don't believe Wikipedia to be the
              panacaea for all our information ills... and I am acutely aware of
              the project's various shortcomings. I am currently developing my own
              wiki for the documentation of my doctoral and other researches, a
              wiki in which I have deliberately restricted user contributions to
              myself alone, for all the reasons that you and others have outlined.

              On the other hand, for general encyclopaedic treatments at least, I
              am nonetheless an optimist regarding the collaborative contribution,
              collation and presentation of basic facts and concepts, framed within
              a neutral point of view and increasingly better referenced with
              scholarly and otherwise authoritative citation.

              Criticisms have been and will continue to be made - and mostly for
              all the right reasons. But criticisms can also be overcome with time,
              effort and good will; something, I believe, Wikipedia is currently
              demonstrating. Should the core of Wikipedia articles eventually
              approximate _at least_ the range, utility and reliability of the most
              recent edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica at any given time, that in
              itself will be a great achievement....

              Any other thoughts?

              -----------------------

              Paul James Cowie
              BA Hons (Sydney) GradDipEd MA (Macquarie) PhD in candidato

              London, England and Sydney, Australia

              Editor, http://www.ancientneareast.net/
              Area Supervisor, Tel Rehov Excavations, Israel

              PhD Candidate, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Macquarie
              University, Sydney, Australia
            • Graham Hagens
              For those interested in the Low Iron II chronological debate, and who may not yet have perused The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating (eds. Levy & Higham, Equinox,
              Message 6 of 14 , Apr 2, 2006
                For those interested in the Low Iron II chronological debate, and who may
                not yet have perused "The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating" (eds. Levy & Higham,
                Equinox, 2005):
                Mazar (and supporters)and Finkelstein (and friends) appear to have reached a
                compromise.
                The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE range for
                the commencement of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the lower
                end of the range.
                Which is just fine: a mere 60 year spread for a transition which probably
                didn't occur simultaneously everywhere anyway.

                Graham Hagems
              • driver40386
                I m not so sure many scholars would have the time nor the inclination to devote to Wikipedia. One criteria I would endorse, one that does not limit every
                Message 7 of 14 , Apr 2, 2006
                  I'm not so sure many scholars would have the time nor the inclination
                  to devote to Wikipedia.
                  One criteria I would endorse, one that does not limit every
                  contributor to have a degree of some such, is that every definitive
                  statement submitted to Wikipedia on any given subject "requires" a
                  reference.

                  References can also be debated but at least the reader knows from
                  where the opinion has emanated and that it is not some product of the
                  imagination. The reader can also judge for themselves whether they
                  have come across a more viable or recent reference on the subject.

                  Provided even the lay-person has done his homework then his/her
                  contribution has some sound basis when supported by a scholarly reference.

                  Just two cents from the peanut gallery.
                  Jon Smyth
                  Toronto.


                  --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Paul James Cowie <editor@...> wrote:

                  > As regards reliability, well, there are a number of things that can
                  > be done immediately to enhance the value of user contributions....
                  > Not all of these are always in common practice, unfortunately, but
                  > hope for the future is high....
                  >
                  > First of all, a far greater number of scholars and academics could
                  > get behind the project, making contributions within their specialist
                  > areas. Keeping an article on your "watchlist" allows you easily to
                  > monitor any negative changes.
                • K L Noll
                  Graham wrote: Subject: Low Iron II chronology debate Mazar (and supporters)and Finkelstein (and friends) appear to have reached a compromise. The high
                  Message 8 of 14 , Apr 6, 2006
                    Graham wrote:
                    Subject: Low Iron II chronology debate
                    Mazar (and supporters)and Finkelstein (and friends) appear to have reached a compromise. The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE range for the commencement of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the lower end of the range.
                    Graham Hagems


                    The compromise is nice, but the implications of the research represent something of a defeat form Mazar's side, nevertheless. Or do you not agree?

                    K. L. Noll
                    Religion Department
                    Brandon University
                    270- 18th Street
                    Brandon, Manitoba
                    R7A 6A9 Canada
                    (204) 727-9701

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Doug Petrovich
                    Graham and All, The high proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE range for the commencement of Iron IIA, while the low party will assume the
                    Message 9 of 14 , Apr 6, 2006
                      Graham and All,

                      "The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE range for
                      the commencement of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the lower
                      end of the range. Which is just fine: a mere 60 year spread for a transition
                      which probably didn't occur simultaneously everywhere anyway."

                      In addition to K. Noll's penetrating question, I would like to add that I am
                      not so sure there is call for such celebration. I mean, even if Mazar has
                      not compromised his position, I do not know if we can refer to this 60-year
                      expansion as "a mere 60" years.

                      Sure, I can buy the idea of a transition that was not completely
                      simultaneous everywhere, but 60 years is a great deal of time for a period
                      to begin in some places but be halted in a time-warp in others. So please
                      don't count me among the celebrants!

                      Doug Petrovich
                      NBTS
                      Siberia, Russia
                    • Graham Hagens
                      ... the commencement ... range. ... something of a defeat ... Y know I would argue the opposite. Mazar has given up a measly 20 years (1000- 980) and retains
                      Message 10 of 14 , Apr 6, 2006
                        K L Noll wrote,Thursday April 06:

                        >>The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE range for
                        the commencement
                        >> of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the lower end of the
                        range.


                        >The compromise is nice, but the implications of the research represent
                        something of a defeat
                        >form Mazar's side, nevertheless. Or do you not agree?


                        Y'know I would argue the opposite. Mazar has given up a measly 20 years
                        (1000->980) and retains the core concept that the transition from
                        'Canaanite' to 'typical Iron IIA' culture (burnished red slip etc) took
                        place some time between mid-Davidic, and perhaps mid-Solomonic periods.
                        Finkelstein et al. appear to have made a more significant move from their
                        previous stand that this change was early-mid 9th century, to now being
                        immediately post-Solomonic. If one accepts that the transition probably
                        occurred somewhere within that range, the implication is that the United
                        Hebrew Monarchy did indeed have a measurable impact on the material culture
                        of the 10th century.

                        Graham Hagens
                      • siaxares
                        ... who may ... & Higham, ... reached a ... range for ... lower ... probably ... I must say, I don t quite understand this! That s because the actual graphic
                        Message 11 of 14 , Aug 17, 2006
                          --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Graham Hagens" <rgrhagens@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > For those interested in the Low Iron II chronological debate, and
                          who may
                          > not yet have perused "The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating" (eds. Levy
                          & Higham,
                          > Equinox, 2005):
                          > Mazar (and supporters)and Finkelstein (and friends) appear to have
                          reached a
                          > compromise.
                          > The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE
                          range for
                          > the commencement of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the
                          lower
                          > end of the range.
                          > Which is just fine: a mere 60 year spread for a transition which
                          probably
                          > didn't occur simultaneously everywhere anyway.
                          >
                          > Graham Hagems


                          I must say, I don't quite understand this! That's because the actual
                          graphic CHART showing the radiocarbon dating forms a very specific
                          POINT, like a pyramid aimed at a specific time just before 870BCE!!
                          It's not a RANGE but a very, very clear POINT!


                          http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Chapter15%20Bayesian%
                          20Analysis%20Tel%20Rehov%20-%20Bruins%20et%20al.pdf#search=%22rehov%
                          20radiocarbon%22

                          The actual graphic for level IV at Rehov is located above. If you
                          can't paste this, just Google "Rehov radiocarbon" and it will show up
                          under:

                          The Groningen Radiocarbon Series from Tel Rehov


                          There is a definite PEAK pointing to 875-870BCE!

                          When the Assyrian Period is correctly redated by the 709BCE eclipse
                          (vs 763BCE, which does not occur in month 3!) then Shishak's invasion
                          gets downdated by 54 years from 925 to 871BCE; precisely where the
                          radiocarbon dating is pointing the most.

                          The result is, that Shishak's invasion is quite accurately dated by
                          the Rehov sample to 871BCE, and since this level is associated with
                          the palace level/destructive level for both Megiddo and Jezeel, it
                          proves that Solomon built the palaces at both these sites, both
                          destroyed by Shishak in 871BCE, which by the way, was during the
                          reign of Solomon during a 7-year co-rulership between Rehoboam and
                          Solomon, not recognized generally by archaeologists when making
                          comparisons with the Shishak inscription (compare 2 Chron 12:1,6).

                          >
                          L. Wilson
                          Astrochronologist
                        • Tory Thorpe
                          ... Any destruction layer at Rehov linked to Sheshonq I (Shishak) without epigraphy is a plausible guess, not a proof. So you cannot use this argument as a way
                          Message 12 of 14 , Aug 17, 2006
                            --- siaxares <lars1950@...> wrote:

                            > The result is, that Shishak's invasion is quite
                            > accurately dated by
                            > the Rehov sample to 871BCE, and since this level is
                            > associated with
                            > the palace level/destructive level for both Megiddo
                            > and Jezeel, it
                            > proves that Solomon built the palaces at both these
                            > sites, both
                            > destroyed by Shishak in 871BCE, which by the way,
                            > was during the
                            > reign of Solomon during a 7-year co-rulership
                            > between Rehoboam and
                            > Solomon, not recognized generally by archaeologists
                            > when making
                            > comparisons with the Shishak inscription (compare 2
                            > Chron 12:1,6).
                            >
                            > >
                            > L. Wilson
                            > Astrochronologist

                            Any destruction layer at Rehov linked to Sheshonq I
                            (Shishak) without epigraphy is a plausible guess, not
                            a proof. So you cannot use this argument as a way of
                            revising Israelite, Egyptian, and Assyrian dates all
                            in one shot. The 763 eclipse is a good match with
                            eponym chronicles B1 and B2, like it or not.

                            Tory Thorpe
                          • David Hall
                            To L. Wilson: What eclipse record are you referring to? Ptolemy was supposed to have recorded an eclipse from the records of Merodach-Baladan c. 719 according
                            Message 13 of 14 , Aug 17, 2006
                              To L. Wilson:

                              What eclipse record are you referring to?

                              Ptolemy was supposed to have recorded an eclipse from the records of Merodach-Baladan c. 719 according to Evetts (1892); another from the time of Nabopolassar in the seventh century and another from the time of of Cyrus in the sixth century.

                              Sennacherib of Nineveh was supposed to have conquered Merodach-Baladan of Babylon c. 704 according to George Smith, I realize that these dates were decided more than a hundred years ago.

                              From, History of Sennacherib by George Smith (1878) based on his translations from the Bellino Cylinder, Cylinder B, fragments from Cylinders C & D, numerous bull inscriptions, Taylor Cylinder, and various epigraphs). See also Ancient History from the Monuments, Assyria from the Earliest Times to the Fall of Nineveh, George Smith, 1875.

                              More recently Joan Oates published Babylon in 1979 & 1986, and listed the regnal years of Merodach Baladan II as ruling twice, once from 721-710 and a second time during 703 not in conflict with dates published more than 100 years earlier cited above.

                              David Q. Hall
                              d.q.hall@...


                              siaxares <lars1950@...> wrote:
                              --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Graham Hagens" <rgrhagens@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > For those interested in the Low Iron II chronological debate, and
                              who may
                              > not yet have perused "The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating" (eds. Levy
                              & Higham,
                              > Equinox, 2005):
                              > Mazar (and supporters)and Finkelstein (and friends) appear to have
                              reached a
                              > compromise.
                              > The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE
                              range for
                              > the commencement of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the
                              lower
                              > end of the range.
                              > Which is just fine: a mere 60 year spread for a transition which
                              probably
                              > didn't occur simultaneously everywhere anyway.
                              >
                              > Graham Hagems

                              I must say, I don't quite understand this! That's because the actual
                              graphic CHART showing the radiocarbon dating forms a very specific
                              POINT, like a pyramid aimed at a specific time just before 870BCE!!
                              It's not a RANGE but a very, very clear POINT!

                              http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Chapter15%20Bayesian%
                              20Analysis%20Tel%20Rehov%20-%20Bruins%20et%20al.pdf#search=%22rehov%
                              20radiocarbon%22

                              The actual graphic for level IV at Rehov is located above. If you
                              can't paste this, just Google "Rehov radiocarbon" and it will show up
                              under:

                              The Groningen Radiocarbon Series from Tel Rehov

                              There is a definite PEAK pointing to 875-870BCE!

                              When the Assyrian Period is correctly redated by the 709BCE eclipse
                              (vs 763BCE, which does not occur in month 3!) then Shishak's invasion
                              gets downdated by 54 years from 925 to 871BCE; precisely where the
                              radiocarbon dating is pointing the most.

                              The result is, that Shishak's invasion is quite accurately dated by
                              the Rehov sample to 871BCE, and since this level is associated with
                              the palace level/destructive level for both Megiddo and Jezeel, it
                              proves that Solomon built the palaces at both these sites, both
                              destroyed by Shishak in 871BCE, which by the way, was during the
                              reign of Solomon during a 7-year co-rulership between Rehoboam and
                              Solomon, not recognized generally by archaeologists when making
                              comparisons with the Shishak inscription (compare 2 Chron 12:1,6).

                              >
                              L. Wilson
                              Astrochronologist






                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.