Comments on Popular Technology.net: The Anti Wikipedia Resource

The irony of your argument is that you clearly acc...

2010-04-22T01:33:41.445-04:00

The irony of your argument is that you clearly accept Ayn Rand as an authority that you are appealing to. While I agree that Mr. Keen did make one mistake in his argument by going after libertarianism because I fail to see where libertarians do not support the knowledgeable over the ignorant.

The problems I have had with Wikipedia is not that it tends to allow all voices to be heard (

Without explicitly saying so, the arrogant Mr. Kee...

2010-02-02T01:32:59.911-05:00

Without explicitly saying so, the arrogant Mr. Keen speaks in favor of "filters against folly" supposedly provided by the old media.

Such filters - by means of the consideration of knowledgeable individuals prior to the promulgation of information sources - have their value, but there is the inescapable fact that these filters are operated by human beings who are subject not

user beware applies to everything, wikipedia is no...

2009-11-30T08:12:05.483-05:00

user beware applies to everything, wikipedia is no exception.

Caveat emptor

Once again, we see why REAL-NAME dialogue is impor...

2008-11-17T22:18:00.000-05:00

Once again, we see why REAL-NAME dialogue is important for rational discussion, because the PSEUDONYMS have liberty at any time to descend into nonsense claims, because their real-world reputation is in no way tarnished.

This is why the new non-profit organization I am founding, the Internet Review Corporation, requires of its board members REAL-NAME disclosure.

Frankly, I may

First of all Vichton, don't bullshit me you didn't...

2008-11-17T14:24:00.000-05:00

First of all Vichton, don't bullshit me you didn't see my reply but saw nihiltres. That is just total nonsense.

Second, don't spam my comments.

Third, CNN claiming a study was peer-reviewed does not make it so.

Fourth, Nature's response is a joke and does not contradict any of the points that Britannica made.

I have clearly refuted the Nature study in the The

Vichton,

1. There is NO rule to determine i...

2008-11-17T14:19:00.000-05:00

Vichton,

1. There is NO rule to determine if a statement is "non-obvious" since this is purely subjective based on the person reading and thus propaganda used to justify wikipedia.

2. Please irrefutably prove that the information is usually correct.

3. Again, so a five year old can edit a Wikipedia page.

4. So what winds up on the page? The real truth or the "

EDIT: I see - So you used the Brittanica page as r...

2008-11-17T11:32:00.000-05:00

EDIT: I see - So you used the Brittanica page as rationale for why Wikipedia is flawed. It might have helped to summarize things considering leaving an entire document without providing commentary or quoting relevant parts is like blindfolding a man and leaving him in the woods and expecting him to find his way.

And, yes, the person who makes Claim A is responsible for defending Claim A.

Hi, Kohs.

If you think that one needs coura...

2008-11-17T11:29:00.000-05:00

Hi, Kohs.

If you think that one needs courage in order to properly present a case for beliefs, then courage is a bad thing and should be jettisoned. If you have heard of the Japanese forum 2channel, everything is anonymous over there. Hiroyuki Nishimura explains why anonymity is right: http://www.ojr.org/japan/internet/1061505583.php
* "If there is a user ID attached to a user, a

First of all, "Vichton Mann" is another pseudonym....

2008-11-17T11:01:00.000-05:00

First of all, "Vichton Mann" is another pseudonym. Someone with no courage to personally stand behind their convictions, but perfectly willing to criticize others who back their beliefs with their identity.

Second of all, if "Vichton" is citing the flawed and biased "Nature" study of Britannica vs. Wikipedia, then he's just as delusional as Nihiltres.

Vichton, get thee to some

Andrew: Ah, I didn't see your reply - But I was ma...

2008-11-17T09:56:00.000-05:00

Andrew: Ah, I didn't see your reply - But I was mainly talking about Kohs's reply. Anyway...

1. There is no hard-and-fast rule, but an obvious statement would be like "New York City is in the United States" - really, I don't think it's that difficult to determine what is obvious and what isn't.
2. You said: 'So you determine that a page is "bad editor" inaccurate by researching and

Vichton, unless you are blind, I answered everyone...

2008-11-17T06:27:00.000-05:00

Vichton, unless you are blind, I answered everyone of his "points" and he has no reasoning. It is sad that so many wikipedia fanboys failed basic logic.

Gregory Kohs: Personal attacks aren't going to get...

2008-11-17T01:55:00.000-05:00

Gregory Kohs: Personal attacks aren't going to get you anywhere. Answer his points, with logic, one by one.

For now, his reasoning stands, Kohs.

You can always count on Nihiltres to leave his din...

2008-11-16T02:11:00.000-05:00

You can always count on Nihiltres to leave his ding-dong, pro-Wikipedia comments every time there's a blog post critical of Wikipedia. He must be so full of JimboJuice, it hurts.

I made no claims about the intentions of the creat...

2008-11-16T01:46:00.000-05:00

I made no claims about the intentions of the creators of Wikipedia. I do not believe they were out to intentionally deceive anyone either. Though by the design of Wikipedia, deception is always a possibility whether it was intended or not.

I also can see the usefulness of an encyclopedia for topics outside a normal encyclopedia. However the burden of proof does not change. The

I find your arguments to be true. At the same time...

2008-11-16T01:05:00.000-05:00

I find your arguments to be true. At the same time, I think Wikipedia never intended what we have now going on, nor were its creators out to deceive anyone. Like anything in life, only fools believe everything they hear.

Then again, how many other resources have pages on cooking shows, video games, and other topics you would never find in a normal encyclopedia?

1. How do you determine if a statement is non-obvi...

2008-11-15T01:17:00.000-05:00

1. How do you determine if a statement is non-obvious? Regarding references you still have to actually check the reference since what is posted can be different then what is on the referenced source. Thus you essentially have to waste extra time verifying everything on a a Wikipedia article. Essentially what you are saying is that you cannot trust anything on Wikipedia that you cannot verify word

1. At the time that you view a page, you check the...

2008-11-15T00:25:00.000-05:00

1. At the time that you view a page, you check the references available for each non-obvious statement. If a statement has a reference, the authority of the reference is what matters. If it doesn't have a reference (and is non-obvious) you can choose to ignore it. I should note that it is harder to evaluate the reliability of many other publications, where sources will not necessarily be