tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27807460.post2263656385710340927..comments2023-12-22T04:42:24.341-05:00Comments on Wishydig: Flip-flopping on metathesisWishydighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06141057866370676641noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27807460.post-10860837769557732402007-06-09T12:03:00.000-04:002007-06-09T12:03:00.000-04:00Unless they google "metathesis" and "wikipedia"......Unless they google "metathesis" and "wikipedia"...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27807460.post-63145116774927420062007-06-09T10:48:00.000-04:002007-06-09T10:48:00.000-04:00I think wikipedia is built on the hacker code, the...I think wikipedia is built on <A HREF="http://petascale.org/code/code.html/" REL="nofollow">the hacker code</A>, the underlying code of the internet. The motto basically breaks down to one commandment: share, share, share.<BR/><BR/>If we consider the web as the semantic web, growing into one powerful super computer in which everything is connected, then it probably doesn't matter where you put your information.<BR/><BR/>Since this "semantic web" is probably a ways off, chances are no one interested in the subject is going to find your collective. In fact, I can almost assure you they won't. <BR/><BR/>Traditional academic work has always been an isolated activity. Wikipedia suggests otherwise. It presents us with an entirely different academic identity. I think the major difficulty of this new identity is that it forces academics into the barnyard.<BR/><BR/>Baa. Baa.Insignificant Wranglerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15950540902913057757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27807460.post-15968177599010061032007-06-08T18:01:00.000-04:002007-06-08T18:01:00.000-04:00A rhoticery league might be fun.A rhoticery league might be fun.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03486681777716496640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27807460.post-54068811213413644902007-06-07T17:43:00.000-04:002007-06-07T17:43:00.000-04:00Here's the issue I was wondering about. I go look ...Here's the issue I was wondering about. I go look at Wikipedia to see what it says and when I find that there's some questionable or even wrong information I decide to put a post up on <I>my own</I> page instead of changing it on Wikipedia -- where I'm "supposed" to make the emendation. That's why Wikipedia puts itself out there.<BR/><BR/>I'm being stubbornly indifferent to the quality of their sight, while obviously not being indifferent about the information. Are there some new wiki-ethics at play here?Wishydighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06141057866370676641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27807460.post-3752321840072663522007-06-07T14:35:00.000-04:002007-06-07T14:35:00.000-04:00I'll just address it here... quickly. Here's some ...I'll just address it here... quickly. Here's some of my base ideas on wikipedia: 1) agonism is productive, 2) information should be free, 3) people are generally good, sometimes. <BR/><BR/>My problem often comes from English teachers who complain about wikipedia. Two complaints about their complaints: 1) instruct students that wikipedia is a place to start research. Then make sure you show them how to follow up and conduct deeper research (did anyone academic ever consider any encyclopedia reliable?); 2) you have 20 able-bodied researchers sitting in front of you every semester. While not all of them might produce quality text, I'm sure several could improve or at least fact-check a wikipedia page. Stop complaining and do something.<BR/><BR/></rant>Insignificant Wranglerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15950540902913057757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27807460.post-78364169182073661672007-06-07T12:39:00.000-04:002007-06-07T12:39:00.000-04:00Wikipedant. Nice. What I don't understand is wha...Wikipedant. Nice. <BR/><BR/>What I don't understand is what's so lascivious about this ɚ. In any case, I'm not a fan of it, either.Buffy Turnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01867498681528614443noreply@blogger.com