Texas Board of Education at it again Banning textbooks

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Joebill

I understand that, but I know wikipedia is waaaay down the list of reliability.

I know someone who developed a computer back in the 1960s. He looked at a wikipedia article on that computer and found errors. He created an account, fixed the erros, pointing out he was on the design team for that computer. And that from the article, the writer of the original article hadn't been there, and had incorrect information.

His work was deleted, and the orignal error fileld article, was placed back. he emailed and told them, he was on the design team. And that obviously whomever wrote the orignial article, knew nothing about the computer.

He tried two more times, and was banned.

So I feel I have excellent reasons for not trusting wikipedia as a source.

This story show that you have reason to trust it. What evidence other then just saying so did he provide that he was on the design team? Somebody just emailing saying something is not a reliable source.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Joebill

I rarely use wikipedia... not a reliable source. I'm not going to read the page. Darwin never claimed we are descended from apes, other people have made the claim based on rumors of what is in the book he wrote.

And you just saying something is a reliable source? I think that wikipedia always wins over somebody just claiming something.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Joebill

I have read of a number of universities that refuse to accept it as a resource for a term paper. So, I'm not the only one who sees it as unreliable.

The reason for that is not unreliability. It is the same reason that you do not allow dictionaries as references either. You should show that you can find primary references and use them.

If you check for example


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

you see:

By 2010 reviewers in medical and scientific fields such as toxicology, cancer research and drug information reviewing Wikipedia against professional and peer reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a very high standard, often comparable in coverage to physician databases and considerably better than well known reputable national media outlets. Wikipedia articles were cited as references in journals (614 cites in 2009) and as evidence in trademark and higher court rulings. However, omissions and readability sometimes remained an issue – the former at times due to public relations removal of adverse product information and a considerable concern for fields such as medicine.

A common view as of 2010 in fields from medicine to technology and a range of social-cultural topics, is that Wikipedia is a valuable research resource and starting point for information and major news events, and articles in many areas are routinely accurate and informative (Military History topics being assessed as "spot on"), but users should take care – as with all general reference works – to check their facts and be aware that mistakes and omissions do occur.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Joebill

I rarely use wikipedia... not a reliable source. I'm not going to read the page.

It doesn't matter that it is a (and here is where I want to use the "f" word, but won't because it will be edited anyway) Wikipedia page, it is a summary of the book. You make the incorrect claim that Darwin never said that we were descended from apes. You are wrong. He did. And no amount of refusing to look at the facts will make you any less wrong.

Here's an on-line copy of the actual book for you to ignore:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/d/darwin/charles/d22d/

http://manybooks.net/titles/darwinchetext00dscmn10.html

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2300

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The only people/groups that I've every heard make the "descent from apes" claim are those that are against evolution or are simply ignorant. Those that know what they are talking about tend to use the "common ancestor" term.

No-- we don't share ancestors with apes. We are apes. Specifically, we are apes of the family Hominidae. The only arguments that can claim that we don't fit within that clade are special pleading creationist ones.

(edit-- oops, I see that WT has already covered that.)

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Joebill

Yup, all primates have a common ancestor around 3-4 million years ago.

See, if you read a few wikipedia articles, you might have some idea what the hell a "primate" is-- and known that your number is off by a full order of magnitude.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

No-- we don't share ancestors with apes. We are apes. Specifically, we are apes of the family Hominidae. The only arguments that can claim that we don't fit within that clade are special pleading creationist ones.

(edit-- oops, I see that WT has already covered that.)

Yes, that's what I was saying. We are hairless, big-brained apes who have evolved a unique set of vocal cords that has allowed us, in conjunction with our increased amount of gray matter, to develop speech and a superior attitude in regards to our fellow apes. We did not evolve from monkeys, but like all the other apes, share a common ancestor with them.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Yes, that's what I was saying. We are hairless, big-brained apes who have evolved a unique set of vocal cords that has allowed us, in conjunction with our increased amount of gray matter, to develop speech and a superior attitude in regards to our fellow apes. We did not evolve from monkeys, but like all the other apes, share a common ancestor with them.

Yes, cladistics is a difficult subject, but it is well worth studying.

This is an excellent general-audience book on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Search-Deep-Ti.../dp/068485421X

[Joebill]

Originally Posted by tompe

This story show that you have reason to trust it. What evidence other then just saying so did he provide that he was on the design team? Somebody just emailing saying something is not a reliable source.

The other people in the newsgroup who knew him back then.

If you want to believe someone, the person who deleted his information, that wasn't there on the design team nor working for the company, because it lal happened years before the deleter was born, then do so.

I believe the guy who was on the design team over Wikipedia.

Folks, if you want to believe Wikipedia is realiable, by all means do so.

I don't believe them to be reliable.

[Joebill]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

See, if you read a few wikipedia articles, you might have some idea what the hell a "primate" is-- and known that your number is off by a full order of magnitude.

from the Free Online Dictionary, and a number of other places

pri·mate (prmt, -mt)
n.
1. (prmt) A mammal of the order Primates, which includes the anthropoids and prosimians, characterized by refined development of the hands and feet, a shortened snout, and a large brain.

I looked it up, 5-8 million years ago the diverge occured.

The '2-3 million years' I used was a guess as I don't carry that info around in my head. I had read a year or so ago that an older common ancestor had been found, but I didn't note the year span.

[Joebill]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

See, if you read a few wikipedia articles, you might have some idea what the hell a "primate" is-- and known that your number is off by a full order of magnitude.

Why would I read a source I beleive to be unreliable ?

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Joebill

Why would I read a source I beleive to be unreliable ?

Facts redacted on decree from moderators

Even when it is pointed out to you, you obviously have no idea what the difference between the human and chimp divergence point (which is approximately 5 to 7 million years ago) and the last common ancestor of primates, where the oldest known fossil is nearly 60 million years old and molecular clock evidence suggests primates date back to as much as 85 million years ago.

Facts redacted on decree from moderators

[Joebill]

Next time I see the professors from university, I'll tell them you told me humans aren't primates. I'm sure they'll find it amusing.

You must not have noticed I did go look it up and changed it to 5-8 million years for the divergance.

Around 60-90 million years ago, the mammal's ancestor was a small rodent-like creature. I don't know of anyone saying Primates/Apes went back that far.

As for ignorance, I have read over 10,000 books in my lifetime. Around 60 percent of them being the sciences and history. I watch Discovery Science multiple times per week. Along with what ever paleontology and archaeology documentaries I can find.

I have never claimed I'm perfect. But yet I am not ignorant. Far from it.

I'll point out that the majority of the people over the decades who have claimed I was ignorant didn't like something I said.

Myself, I would be more likely to say someone was misinformed and point them to a reference. But that reference wouldn't be Wikipedia under any circumstances.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Joebill

The other people in the newsgroup who knew him back then.

If you want to believe someone, the person who deleted his information, that wasn't there on the design team nor working for the company, because it lal happened years before the deleter was born, then do so.

I believe the guy who was on the design team over Wikipedia.

Folks, if you want to believe Wikipedia is realiable, by all means do so.

I don't believe them to be reliable.

It is not a question about who to believe. There are rules. And you need sources for everything. These rules can have strange result sometimes but overall they increase the reliability.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

It is not a question about who to believe. There are rules. And you need sources for everything. These rules can have strange result sometimes but overall they increase the reliability.

Exactly. As I said when this whole "subthread" started. All sources potentially have bias or reliability issues, it is up to the user to determine what/whether the information is true/good or not.