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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.