Put some cotton in your ears, quick!

You mean to keep them in? Thereby altruistically saving the world from certain doom? Hmmm... I like the cut of your gib... I'll do it!.... although my students might think I have actually finally cracked when I walk into their class later with cotton protuding from my ears!

I'm a recovering postmodernist (well, mostly off the wagon 'cause I can't stop reading newspapers) and a working editor. I'm also a hard-science groupie and a hesitant fan of the Wikipedia. (Stephen Colbert's campaign to save the African elephants by editing the Wikipedia is just too, too, something...)

I also used to teach civics, and I'm pretty impressed with how so many folks have really kept with the OP's title for the thread (perhaps even unconsciously). Much of the talk about Wikipedia and the tendency of modern media to spread messages without verifying their content is essentially about whether or how "facts" get to be "on your side."

IMO, we should think more often about that old, first usage of "fact" in English--a made or done thing. I really don't like anyone getting serious about the word "fact" unless they have quantifiable, material evidence that can be independently verified by a repeatable experiment. I believe that we all view our world in an inevitably subjective fashion, but I also believe *the world is out there independent of us*. Yes, we need to understand differing worldviews to facilitate peaceful social life. But your worldview is not immediately relevant to whether or not, say, Hurricane Katrina wrecked your town.

ha! funny how profs like to put their (typically better) students on the spot. i like foucault's explanatory power, but his ideas don't exactly help someone who wants to change a discursive regime. did you get much into Barthes? he's just fun.

Class is in session!
GW Swicord - As an editor, you must have a very interesting time with he various "facts" that are presented to you in various ways. I can't decide if I envy you or pity you. I am a believer of the oldest school of all - Stoicism, in the original form; before "Stephano-Colbertus Pex-Gaga Plato-Itis Me-Firstius" changed the popular perceived definition.

["Virtue, reason, and natural law are prime directives. By mastering passions and emotions, Stoics believe it is possible to overcome the discord of the outside world and find peace within oneself. Stoicism holds that passion distorts truth, and that the pursuit of truth is virtuous."]

["The ancient Stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used pertained to different concepts in the past than they do today. The word stoic has come to mean unemotional or indifferent to pain, because Stoic ethics taught freedom from passion by following reason. But the Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions, only to avoid emotional troubles by developing clear judgment and inner calm through diligent practice of logic, reflection, and concentration."]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism]

For the remainder of this class session, , to those who don't want to accept the Wikipedia definition of fact (below) as a basis for continued discussion, and wish to insinuate that there is some other, more valid etymology available, please go start your own thread; call it "my fantasy megalomania revealed" or "my boyfriend's website has all the answers" or whatever, but please be silent in this class. Thank you.

Stating I am a believer in Stoicism is too weak a word. Practitioner would be more accurate. I'm not talking about me to get attention, I'm giving you a context to use to understand my interpretations of facts (just as you did by stating you were an Editor etc, right up front), which I think supports your very accurate point ->
As someone else pointed out, this is sometimes called "bias" and is in fact a surmountable obstacle. The solution appears to be also sharing the background context in which a statement was formulated, as a means of further enhancing communication. It was easy for me to get an idea of "where you were coming from" when you stated you were an editor etc. If I didn't have the background of what an editor does, I could just look up "editor" on Wikipedia and get an idea (if I wasn't too lazy and self-centered to look it up).

I'd like to continue with the now-fabled quote of the "Etymology and usage" of the word "fact" from Wikipedia; which I hope can be deemed acceptable by all parties, since it supports each and every seperate view of "facts" that I remember being presented in this thread; in their various forms. It could also serve as a guide and a reminder to those who are too lazy to read it themselves. Shall we begin?


Perverted?
I am also. It was also gratifying to see so much discussion and interest, and I am satisfied that at least one person has been intellectually empowered as a result. Of course the side ventures into science, religion and homosexuality have left me wondering if another Stephen Colbert or four have joined in, but that's not important.
Very accurate. However, in the end, there is no substitute for honesty. Who was it that said "Being about to be hanged concentrates the mind wonderfully" ? ... **connect** with the Stoic Marcus Aurelius (yes, THAT Marcus Aurelius) quotation -> "If you work at that which is before you, following right reason seriously, vigorously, calmly, without allowing anything else to distract you, but keeping your divine part pure, as if you were bound to give it back immediately; if you hold to this, expecting nothing, but satisfied to live now according to nature, speaking heroic truth in every word which you utter, you will live happy. And there is no man able to prevent this."

Class is dismissed!   

so you're a post-postmodernist?



1) good luck getting academic types to agree on definitions of anything.

2) i'm reminded of something i learned in sociology of knowledge. my class was presented with the difference between ontic facts, facts which are true because the laws of the universe itself make them true - and social facts, facts that are true because people make them true. "things are drawn towards the earth," is an example of the former, and "women wear nail polish" is an example of the latter. the big point of bringing this up, however, is that social facts can bear just as much on one's life as ontic facts. thing about the historical social fact "aryans are the master race" if that's hard to see.

don't really have a point to make with that; at least, nothing new.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" ... [unknown]
But! You CAN pull out your video camera, and record the dying process ...

(make sure you get the part where the face falls into the water when the collapse from dehydration occurs!!! and don't foget some glib remarks about how it's difficult to know if the poor little horsey died from dehydration or drowning!!! that'll be good "intellectual" stuff)

... and then send it in to "World's Funniest Animal Videos" ... might be a profit in it!
           

(emphasis added)

Did I miss something? I'm pretty sure I'm the token gay boy around here and I usually spot the bashing (or co-opting) even if I don't always mention it.



Not at all. The silly allusion was to the 12-step world, with me having gone to meetings but never entirely quit thinking about silly big words like "intersubjectivity."

I have a great love of Enlightenment ideals despite having read too much about what European (and later US) colonialism has done to the world. My real problem is basically being too stupid to pick up where Foucault left off. Just because I "know" most of our political world is "just a social construction" doesn't mean I have any handy ideas on how to spruce up the place.

Plus, Italo Calvino's If On a Winter's Night a Traveller is probably my favorite fancy-lit book, and if that don't tag a feller as a helpless pomo then I dunno what would...

If that's what someone was looking for, then no, not from me anyway. If we were speaking in person I would gladly (not gayly) reassure you I detest bigotry and wouldn't stand for it in my presence ... and that it cuts both wayz.

Compassion, honesty, strength, courage, intellect, and responsibility! Apply these standards to everything you do, and you will be a beacon of light even in the darkest hour.

If you can do it without hurting anyone, and without violating their Rights, go for it. We (Humans) need every one we can get to start acting Human, before it's too late.   

The Wiki in my opinion is usually shallow and one sided, however it does sometimes prove to be quite useful, however I would check a few sources other the Wiki if you want some kind of essence of fact.

That's true no matter where you go for information. Skepticism is a very wise trait to have.

I find myself using the Wikipedia more and more, and the more I do, the more instances I have of A. Not being satisfied (whiny) about not finding exactly what I want, when I want it, and said just the way I want to hear it ... or B. getting just enuff info to interest me, and then I have to actually go look up something in a book.

Something i was hoping someone would say here that didn't come up, or at least I didn't see it, was that the Wikipedia is overall a very positive thing. Sure it has it's drawbacks, but only a short time ago, millions of people had much less access to information ... and that is bad for societies across the globe. Call me a dreamer if you will, but the ideal that Wikipedia represents, similar to a lot of sci-fi books I've read (David Weber's Honor Harrington series for instance) - where everyone has free communication across the known universe (without repression and control!!!) is actually an ideal that will help us all keep our freedom!

Just like the Postal Service, those kinds of institutions are valuable. The fact that Wikipedia is evolvong is to be expected, since it didn't get started sooner (I wonder why). The fact that Wikipedia is edited by people who care, for whatever reason, and contribute to it is also very positive.

Even though I may get whiny at times, I cannot help but think "what if all this information was restricted to only Nazi Party Officials if the Nazi Party had won WWII?" or "What if the Church of *****, with all it's official approved torture-chambers and paying informants to narc on their own family members owned it and restricted it's use Only For Official Church Business?"

Many people nowadays conveniently forget the real monsters waiting to leap out and strangle freedom, and freedom of information, and destroy all our freedoms because they get in the way ...

So, complain all ya want, IMHO being able to just use a computer to get info that used to be hidden away, in a few seconds now, is a hell of a lot better than being an ignorant peasant hitched to a plow! Unless you wanna try that for some reason?

There, I've had my rant. Don't forget to vote either, people. The Nazi's dam near won the war ... next time you/we may not be so fortunate. Information is power.

no, you're not the only one around here. there's a disgression on gay adoption going in the most dangerous people alive.



ah, postmodernism: the o'doul's of the trendy intellectual world. i'm more of a Blood and Guts in High School kind of pomo, myself. but If On a Winter's Night a Traveller is a great book; it's similar in some respects (2nd person narration especially) to a novel idea i've been trying to get going. have you read any Julio Cortazar?



hmmm... the people who benefit from wikipedia have internet access, and the majority of them have historically also had library access. wikipedia has made access to information more convenient. that said, i do think it's a good thing and also for reasons beyond mere access to info. the wikipedia community is a sort of popular parallel to the academic world in some respects (most notably, the proscription to work together and synthesize perspectives/theories).

I am skeptical about the Wiki because of what it encourages in people.

Because of the freedom to tamper with so much information many people get decieved and the wrong ideas are portrayed.

Not to mention it encouraging actions on envy and jelousy.

It is quite an amazing thing, that is for sure, a bit more security would make it even better. Sure the sharing of unrestricted ideas produces marvelous results, but more often then people either dont know what they are talking about, or change the information on purpose.

I like debate dystopic if I see how it will be "better" I am willing to change my mind. But there doesn t seem to be considerations to the future generations in your arguments. If I am wrong I am willing to change. Is that really a disgression?

I am a pagan I understand the problems of people not understanding that you are diffrent. But I also do not think its wise to change certain aspects of the culture quickly. For instance if one of my kids wants to be president they will have to switch religions. Is it fair, no, but should it be forced to change over night, no again. You want rapid change, I say slow is better.

You get to say your peice of mind about the issue but I can not? How does that spark debate? If you don t allow people to debate the subject it will only foster hate.

Are you really busy at work dystopic? You OK man? I have never seen you not post on a week day.

That's all true ... and it's depressing that there is even a possibility anyone could be so ignorant as to post false information or let their envy/jealousy take over their mind. While I know that is ignorance (ignorance/ignorant are not cuss words, they simply refer to no-true-info-input ... like a computer -> garbagein=garbageout) ... anyway while I know it's ignorance at the base of all of that (post false information or let their envy/jealousy take over their mind) it's very depressing.

However the only solution is to point out the good things about it, and to commend everyone who participates in curing ignorance, whether on Wikipedia, as a supporter of the Public Library System, or as a professor that tells the truth and empowers students instead of exploiting them (as so many abysmally ignorant professors do) ... even the smallest person can change the future! ... I try to remain positive instead of succumbing to depression/ignorance. Thanks to you, TheGreatEmperor, for your input, and to everyone else as well! We shall overcome!   

Have any of y'all taken a peek at the baby Citizendium?

"The project, started by a co-founder of Wikipedia, aims to improve on that model by adding 'gentle expert oversight' and requiring contributors to use their real names."

They're only up to about 2,100 articles so far, but despite the clunky name it seems like an idea that could lead to good stuff in the long run.

The largest detractor of wikipedia are its volunteers, period.
First, they are not paid, so there is no "pressure", if you will, to produce good, consistent articles compared to a professional who gets something for good results. If the article gets too tough or complex, the volunteer can just chop it down or quit. Not necesarily the case with a professional.
Secondly, they are not paid, meaning they are not hired. The basic/initital quality control of the hiring process does not exist.
Thirdly, there is no vetting process. If I am a rogue scholar who thinks I know a lot about a subject and have many theories to accompany it, I can write a wiki article and express my opinions as facts. I can essentially write my own article that will be accepted and used on wiki, but would never be accepted by any legitimate publication (encyclopedida, journal, etc)
Lastly, Take a look around these boards. Look at the posts about science, religion, society, economics, etc. Everyone comes in with thier own "facts". They, for the most part truely believe what they are stating is accurate and correct. The same thing can occure in wikipedia (and does). It not necesarily an article written by someone looking to decieve, but someone who just doesn't know any better, and there isn't enough incentive (like an actual job) for this person to bother to find out.

Nice! Looks like Wikipedia IS evolving (ref comments made earlier aboit Wikipedia being a work-in-progress) . Thanks for the link!All valid points, for sure. However (I avoided saying "but" on purpose so what I'm trying to say wouldn't come across like an objection) ... however there are also years and years of examples (probably millions!) where someone paid to do a job is A. Doing the least amount of research possible to put out whatever satisfies the boss. B. Being paid by a corporation or other special-interest group to insert their "SPIN" on the info for selfish gain. C. Someone that has no knowledge whatsoever about the subject but has "had greatness thrust upon them" just because the bureaucracy they work for decided to switch them to fill a position requiring them to spout something, which commonly ends up being copied, plagarized, or worse->falsified hoping no one will notice till they go to their next job.

All-in-all, I'd say skepticism is still the best defense, but at least the people contributing to Wikipedia CARE about SOMETHING besides collecting a paycheck. In the long run, the odds are that the basic premise of Wikipedia (and related/similar endeavors) will contribute as much or more to Human societies as the Industrial Revolution, AND without gruesomely exploiting millions of people to do it. Just some food-for-thought.

Motto of industrialized nations -> "Have You Had Your Exploitation Today?"   

I do not argue aboutthe spirit of those involved in Wikipedia and other ventures.

A) You are also totally correct that there are people who half a$$ thier jobs, but encyclopedias still have a vetting process and Wikipedia does not. The articles still have to hit an editor (most likely a career editor with a passion for thier publication) to make sure there is nothing inappropriate in teh article in terms of content or implications, and that the information is factually correct.

B I don't know of any encyclopdia's or academic journals that are in the pay of special intrest groups or corporations (one must be wary of "publications" made by these groups as some form of advertisement or propaganda emulating the style of a legitamite journal - I have seen that a few times). Some journals do have ads, but in many publications, the editorial department and advertisement departments are separate. The reason is to maintian the integrety of the articles.



I don't really see Wikipedia re-defining every facet of human life for those who experience it, but hey, who knows. I am crious to hear your opinion on that.

I don't understand ? How could I give an opinion on how Wikipedia redefines every facet of human life for those who experience it? It's just a tool, graciously provided, not a Saviour come to fix the mental-malfunctions people have (for free).

For brain-f**t fixing, someone would probably need a lot more than just a source of info, and the "lot more" probably varies from person to person.

Me, for instance ... I require a legion of mongol horsemen to get me to do homework. My teachers aren't impressed, however, and insist on grading my work the same as everyone else's.
"That's b******t, Man!"
"Call 1-800-WAA-WAAH"

Anyone heard of any formal academic work underway to try answering a question like "Which yields higher quality information over time: a paid, credentialed staff or an open pool of volunteers?"

The original Oxford English Dictionary was sort of both. The editors depended on a world-wide network of volunteers for the etymologies and usage histories of obscure words.

I guess my point is that the Wikipedia *does* get edited, just not in the traditional paperbound sense. The web has taken us back to a much older English meaning of "publish," namely to speak your piece in public (typically to your fellow literate monks at supper).

A world where chunks of text can change (or disappear) so quickly makes writing a bit more like speech, which is perhaps a good thing b/c we've seen the kind of problems that can arise when people take a given piece of writing too seriously (Wars of Religion, anybody?).

Seriously? I haven't ... after thinking about it I imagine there is a think-tank somewhere with that data on-file in case it's needed, but it's probably in a secret vault under the What? h^ouse. Or, try the universities 'archives. Too lazy to look them up, but spiffing (I made that word up, means a fast search of boring old archive directories) ... spiffing through places like princeton, yale, usc, and etc. turns up some really interesting stuff.
Yeah, and word-wars are a lot better than real wars, I like to say. I hate real wars and that whole barbaric scene period (anyone who has ever been in a war changes their mind about the romanticism and idealism real fast, but those who haven't keep insisting young people should go and do it ... yecch). I do like to use games and online competition to get my aggressions out, and I think that's a good thing. Especially since it helps me control my aggression in society. Word wars are ok, even if feelings get hurt, all it takes is a little time to get over it, unlike having a real bullet in the head.   

P.S. - when you see something interesting, get it on your hard drive immediately. Several times I've procrastinated and the data has been moved or edited or deleted.   

I stayed home Friday, and my wireless has been acting up and i was too lazy to fix it.



hmm... off the bat, i never meant to suggest that you shouldn't speak your mind. i'm not sure what i did to give that impression; maybe the word 'digression.' all i meant to say with that was that our discussions had gone off the original topics; i don't consider that a bad thing at all.

i think i responded to part of what you said above in the other forum, the part about consideration for the future. i am thinking about the future; i'm thinking about future generations of queer people and the struggles they may or may not have to endure.

i'm not really sure i'm even proposing to change culture directly. a culture that accepts and supports gay families already exists in some parts of the country. it's the laws i'm proposing to change. since adoption seems to be the big hang-up, i'd suggest thinking about it from the child's point of view: the foster child who wakes up with nightmares of being taken away from the two fathers who are the only loving family he's have ever had. i bet he wishes they could adopt him. god forbid we should ever actually determine policy based on the desires and opinions of people actually involved.

okay, you're worried about culture changing too quickly, but culture's already changing pretty quickly. the very fact that you can openly claim being pagan (let alone know how to use the word in a non-derogatory way) is only because culture in the U.S. has already changed very quickly over the last 60 years. if you'd have "come out" of the pagan closet in the 40s, you'd have been paganism's Matthew Shepard. i'm not trying to say that gays have it worse; i know that tens of thousands of European pagans were burned alive in the past (and gays were secondary targets in the holocaust).

As long as it goes your way? (friendly poke in the RIBS)   

"The persecution and genocide were accomplished in stages. Legislation to remove the Jews from civil society was enacted years before the outbreak of World War II. Concentration camps were established in which inmates were used as slave labour until they died of exhaustion or disease." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust]

Exactly which laws need to be changed? There are already laws against discrimination of all types ... are gays the next "Nazi Party" ?

"Other groups were persecuted and killed by the regime, including the Roma, Soviet POWs, disabled people, homosexual men, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholic Poles, and political prisoners.[3][4] Many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, defining it as the genocide of the Jews" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust]

Nice to be able to write history to suit yourself, eh? What an example of bigotry. Maybe this needs to be changed first?
-------------
"Taking into account all the victims of Nazi persecution, the death toll rises considerably: estimates generally place the total number of victims at nine to 11 million.[6]" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust]

... and that doesn't even mention the 13 million Joseph Stalin murdered (may he burn in Hell forever). All total, I've heard it said that WWII resulted in the deaths of over 60 million! Of that revised WWII ONLY total, 10% or less were Jews, even less Roma (gypsies), even less religion-related, even less homosexuals, and even less political.
-------------
Of the political murders, the first ones to go were the homosexuals that helped Hitler form the Nazi Party in the first place (approx. June 29, 1934) six or seven years before the war started "officially." I've heard it said Hitler had them killed partly to prevent them from blabbing that he was a homosexual or sexual-weird as well ...

"The Night of the Long Knives (German: Nacht der langen Messer) or "Operation Hummingbird," was a purge of Adolf Hitler's potential political rivals in the Sturmabteilung (SA).

The SA (sometimes known as the "Stormtroopers" or "Brownshirts"), a paramilitary organization of the Nazi Party, played a key role in the Nazi rise to power in the 1920s and early 1930s.[1] Once Hitler had transformed Germany into a one-party state, however," [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_long_knives]

"dislike that many conservative officers expressed over Röhm's homosexuality and some other SA leaders. Industrialists such as Albert Voegler, Gustav Krupp, Alfried Krupp, Fritz Thyssen and Emile Kirdorf, who had provided the funds for the Nazi victory, were unhappy with Röhm's socialism and his claims that the real revolution had still to take place." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_long_knives]
--------------
"Hitler presented himself publicly as a man without an intimate domestic life, dedicated to his political "mission". He had a fiancée, Mimi Reiter in the 1920s, and later had a mistress, Eva Braun. He had a close bond with his niece Geli Raubal, which many commentators have claimed was sexual, although there is no evidence that proves this.[75] All three women attempted suicide during their relationship with him, a fact which has led to speculation that Hitler may have had unusual sexual fetishes, such as urolagnia, as was claimed by Otto Strasser. Reiter, the only one to survive the Nazi regime, denies this.[76] During the war and afterwards psychoanalysts offered numerous inconsistent psycho-sexual explanations of his pathology.[77] More recently Lothar Machtan has argued in his book The Hidden Hitler that Hitler was homosexual, while others argue that he was largely asexual." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#Sexuality]

P.S. - Do you play GCII regularly? There are quite a few parallels to political domination in the game. I was just asking cause i noticed you haven't posted any games on the Metaverse, not that it's any of my business (unless of course my sexual orientation is your business?) ...