Re: [mythsoc] It took six professors to come up with this?
- View SourceOn a "Wiki Talk" page at medlibrary (I'm not a Wiki contributor so am not entirely sure how that works!) there is a brief discussion of this entry, in which "AlcockMarine" responds to questions about the citation for the Lewis article:
I was mistaken in the second reference- the title is a book chapter not a journal article. I will reinsert the section with the correct reference. AlcockMarine (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It still reads "Journal of AA of R" at the wikipedia site, though.
I suspect (but it's just intuition so I may be mistaken) that the AlcockMarine user who said he would reinsert the text with the correct citation is the same Frank Alcock who is listed as an author of the article (?book chapter?) in question. Frank Alcock is on staff at New College and is (or was) director of a "Marine Policy Institute".
Not sure what I think anyone wants to do with all this "intuition" and Googling on my part, though.
In a message dated 12/25/2008 12:56:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Have you considered the possibility that this may be some Wikipedia user's idea of a joke?
I didn't think of that. The footnote on the Wikipedia page says that it was published in The Journal of the American Academy of Religion. That's a real journal, but I can't find a reference to this article when I search their archives.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- View SourceIt's easier to sabotage wikipedia, and easier for them to fix it.
By contrast, I found one error introduced into the 1970 edition
of BREWER'S DICTIONARY OF PHRASE AND FABLE that's still not been
fixed thirty-eight years later, and another that dates back more than
a century. Wikipedia would have both fixed in a day.
As with all reference books, you check the validity of what you
don't know by their coverage of what you do, and takes yr chances
On Dec 30, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Steve Schaper wrote:
> Well, even the people working for wikipedia engage in information
> vandalism and heavy bias from time to time. Whether it is less so than
> dead-tree encyclopedias is an open question, I think. I don't know the
> answer to that.