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

RE: {Disarmed} RE: [GTh] Adventures in Wikiland

Expand Messages
  • Richard Hubbard
    Jordan and Judy (and all) The personal grudge syndrome described by Jordan (about the person who marked some salient links for deletion) describes an
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Jordan and Judy (and all)

      The "personal grudge" syndrome described by Jordan (about the person who
      marked some salient links for deletion) describes an increasingly common
      behavior pattern in contemporary society. Recently I listed to a very
      brief (5 minute ?) radio interview with a sociologist who has been
      studying the Fact Denial Syndrome. In a nutshell, what his research
      concludes is that any time information, regardless of how empirically
      verifiable it may be, comes into conflict with an individual's most
      cherished cultural values, the information will be dismissed as "bogus".


      Rick Hubbard

      |-----Original Message-----
      |From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com]
      |Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 6:33 AM
      |To: Richard Hubbard; gthomas@yahoogroups.com
      |Subject: {Disarmed} RE: [GTh] Adventures in Wikiland
      |Importance: Low
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |Jordan says:
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |On 1-Mar-10, at 7:03 AM, Bob Schacht wrote:
      |
      |> The Wikipedia is a remarkable project worthy of support.
      |
      |I couldn't disagree more. Some months ago, a single individual marked a
      dozen
      |articles on contemporary Gnosticism for deletion. He did this out of
      personal grudge.
      |
      |I know that the quality of articles in Wikipedia varies depending on
      the subject matter.
      |Unfortunately, Gnosticism appears to be one of those areas about which
      (some)
      |people feel very strongly and are prepared to go to significant lengths
      to ensure that
      |their own particular biases are represented. Other subjects are much
      less subject to
      |this kind of thing, so some of the material up there is very balanced
      and informative.
      |Unfortunately, because of the nature of the medium there is no
      guarantee of quality.
      |There is a saying amongst my daughter's friends which reflects the
      problem very
      |well:
      |
      |"Of course it's true. You know it's true. Do I have to put it up on
      Wikipedia to prove it
      |to you?"
      |
      |I actually use Wikipedia as a starting point for many things, but I
      never expect it to
      |provide me with anything more than general information, and I always
      check the info
      |carefully from more reliable sources if it matters that it's correct. I
      therefore don't
      |think it's worth putting too much time or emotional energy into trying
      to stop either of
      |the people Mike and Jordan mention. We just need to make it known that
      these are
      |two areas where Wikipedia is anything but balanced and accurate. By all
      means state
      |the objections, but other than taking the matter to the people in
      charge, I don't see
      |what else can be done.
      |
      |Regards
      |
      |Judy
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.