No more EB - Page 5

MrsJoseph · 03-15-2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by din155

Was it then just me who saw the title of thread as "No more FB" in the first glance?

din

One can only dream...

JGB · 03-18-2012, 01:15 AM

The standards thing I always find a bit amusing. Especially the arguments over how something must be valid just because it's been around longer. One of my favorite examples was the height of the statue of David. Every print source from the last couple hundred years or so is wrong. By a lot. Nobody ever thought to actually check, they just referenced the last person with the wrong number. All the way back to some guy who eyeballed it and wrote an estimate in a notebook.

As for peer reviewed sources for university papers, must be nice to have access. A trip to the library would cost me more time and money than I can afford to waste, the school library is no use for anything outside a narrow focus, and besides that I don't have time to go to campus all that often. Online is pretty much my only resource most of the time.

fjtorres · 03-23-2012, 08:18 AM

A reasonable look at the whole "authority" issue and Britannica's prospects:

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2...he-britannica/

Quote:

Britannica’s challenge in the future is not going to be convincing people that it offers value. It’s going to be convincing people that what it offers — a very small amount of highly reliable information — is worth paying for, given that people can easily get a very large amount of reasonably reliable information for free.

anamardoll · 03-23-2012, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGB

The standards thing I always find a bit amusing. Especially the arguments over how something must be valid just because it's been around longer. One of my favorite examples was the height of the statue of David. Every print source from the last couple hundred years or so is wrong. By a lot. Nobody ever thought to actually check, they just referenced the last person with the wrong number. All the way back to some guy who eyeballed it and wrote an estimate in a notebook.

As for peer reviewed sources for university papers, must be nice to have access. A trip to the library would cost me more time and money than I can afford to waste, the school library is no use for anything outside a narrow focus, and besides that I don't have time to go to campus all that often. Online is pretty much my only resource most of the time.

Ha, I did not know that.

I take a amateur interest in early American history and I love Mann's 1491 and 1493 books, but it's interesting to note how many print textbooks are just flat wrong about a LOT of early American history.

fjtorres · 03-23-2012, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I take a amateur interest in early American history and I love Mann's 1491 and 1493 books, but it's interesting to note how many print textbooks are just flat wrong about a LOT of early American history.

Oh, most of that was "superceded" by the official narrative of the 1880s just as the archaelogically accurate history of north american pre-history is being superceded by the "official" politically correct narrative of modern times.

It is going to be a while, if ever, before we know exactly who the Clovis people really were and where they came from because any suggestion that they (or their precursors) might *not* be of asian ("mongoloid") descent is promptly shot down. (c.f. The Kennewick man controversy.)

There is too much modern politics at stake to allow other narratives to be openly considered.

Kumabjorn · 03-23-2012, 01:09 PM

Out of curiosity, what would those "modern politics" be, and what is at stake? Are you suggesting that scientific truth is being undermined?

ApK · 03-23-2012, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Out of curiosity, what would those "modern politics" be, and what is at stake? Are you suggesting that scientific truth is being undermined?

Maybe you can continue in the P&R forum....

fjtorres · 03-23-2012, 05:37 PM

To put it terms that are on-topic, "authoritative" sources more often than not are the official position of the time and place, the orthodoxy of the era. In the 1880's the orthodoxy on american history was the triumphalist "conquest of the continent" narrative and anything that conflicted with that orthodoxy was deprecated, ignored, brushed aside.

Fast-forward a hundred years and you'll find a different "authoritative" orthodoxy and narrative in place that does not contenance light being shined in the dark places any more than the older one.

You find similar conflicts all over in reference works and resources with different societies insisting *their* narrative is the correct and "authoritative" one.

So we get debates about the Gulf of Arabia/Persian Gulf, who invented the telephone, whether the moon landings were faked, and whether Jomon/Ainu proto-caucasian peoples from northern asia could have colonized north america millenia before the first amerindians. All of which in one form or another impact modern politics in one way or another. (Read: prestige, money, influence, nationalist pride, etc).

And it is those kinds of debates that usually end up being fought in Wikipedia edit wars which is why Wikipedia is generally accepted to be merely "reasonably accurate" instead of "authoritative". Regardless of their position, somebody's ox is bound to get gored and somebody is going to go away in a snit.

The price of trying to be comprehensive, I suppose.

Sil_liS · 03-23-2012, 05:54 PM

So the theory is that controversial topics are not presented in an objective way on wikipedia. Did anyone compare the presentation of one such topic by both wikipedia and EB? And I don't mean 5 years ago. If someone on the forum has an EB volume could they give an example?

fjtorres · 03-23-2012, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

So the theory is that controversial topics are not presented in an objective way on wikipedia.

More precisely: on any controversial topic, *somebody* (usually a lot of them) will argue that the topic is not factually correct. On many subjects, one person's "objective" is another person's "mendacious lie".

Britannica, in its heyday, was authoritative primarily because they had "freedon of the press" and challengers didn't.

Wikipedia, however, exists on the internet, a medium where everybody's worldview has to coexist with everybody else's.

Sil_liS · 03-23-2012, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Wikipedia, however, exists on the internet, a medium where everybody's worldview has to coexist with everybody else's.

This just makes me think that wikipedia is better. I don't see the benefit of an unchallenged position.

fjtorres · 03-23-2012, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

This just makes me think that wikipedia is better. I don't see the benefit of an unchallenged position.

Which brings us full circle: EB is where it is because a lot of people prefer crowd-sourced references.
(shrug)
I'll merely point out that just because a zillion people believe something doesn't necessarily make it any more true than if some annointed "authority" proclaims it.

Sil_liS · 03-23-2012, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Which brings us full circle: EB is where it is because a lot of people prefer crowd-sourced references.
(shrug)
I'll merely point out that just because a zillion people believe something doesn't necessarily make it any more true than if some annointed "authority" proclaims it.

I was actually expecting that the opinions/facts accepted by the zillion people would match the opinions/facts proclaimed by the "authority", and when new evidence is presented the dynamic system would be quicker to change.

fjtorres · 03-23-2012, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I was actually expecting that the opinions/facts accepted by the zillion people would match the opinions/facts proclaimed by the "authority", and when new evidence is presented the dynamic system would be quicker to change.

Not on the internet.
The masses always know better than the people whose job is to know.
Urban legends always trump reality.

03-23-2012, 05:37 PM	#68
fjtorres Grand Sorcerer Posts: 11,732 Karma: 128354696 Join Date: May 2009 Location: 26 kly from Sgr A* Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000	To put it terms that are on-topic, "authoritative" sources more often than not are the official position of the time and place, the orthodoxy of the era. In the 1880's the orthodoxy on american history was the triumphalist "conquest of the continent" narrative and anything that conflicted with that orthodoxy was deprecated, ignored, brushed aside. Fast-forward a hundred years and you'll find a different "authoritative" orthodoxy and narrative in place that does not contenance light being shined in the dark places any more than the older one. You find similar conflicts all over in reference works and resources with different societies insisting their narrative is the correct and "authoritative" one. So we get debates about the Gulf of Arabia/Persian Gulf, who invented the telephone, whether the moon landings were faked, and whether Jomon/Ainu proto-caucasian peoples from northern asia could have colonized north america millenia before the first amerindians. All of which in one form or another impact modern politics in one way or another. (Read: prestige, money, influence, nationalist pride, etc). And it is those kinds of debates that usually end up being fought in Wikipedia edit wars which is why Wikipedia is generally accepted to be merely "reasonably accurate" instead of "authoritative". Regardless of their position, somebody's ox is bound to get gored and somebody is going to go away in a snit. The price of trying to be comprehensive, I suppose. Last edited by fjtorres; 03-23-2012 at 05:41 PM.

03-18-2012, 01:15 AM	#62
JGB Groupie Posts: 168 Karma: 1010000 Join Date: Jul 2008 Device: PRS505	The standards thing I always find a bit amusing. Especially the arguments over how something must be valid just because it's been around longer. One of my favorite examples was the height of the statue of David. Every print source from the last couple hundred years or so is wrong. By a lot. Nobody ever thought to actually check, they just referenced the last person with the wrong number. All the way back to some guy who eyeballed it and wrote an estimate in a notebook. As for peer reviewed sources for university papers, must be nice to have access. A trip to the library would cost me more time and money than I can afford to waste, the school library is no use for anything outside a narrow focus, and besides that I don't have time to go to campus all that often. Online is pretty much my only resource most of the time.

03-23-2012, 01:09 PM	#66
Kumabjorn Basculocolpic Posts: 4,356 Karma: 20181319 Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Sweden Device: Kindle 3 WiFi, Kindle 4SO, Kindle for Android, Sony PRS-350 and PRS-T1	Out of curiosity, what would those "modern politics" be, and what is at stake? Are you suggesting that scientific truth is being undermined?

03-23-2012, 05:54 PM	#69
Sil_liS Wizard Posts: 4,896 Karma: 33602910 Join Date: Oct 2010 Device: PocketBook 903 & 360+	So the theory is that controversial topics are not presented in an objective way on wikipedia. Did anyone compare the presentation of one such topic by both wikipedia and EB? And I don't mean 5 years ago. If someone on the forum has an EB volume could they give an example?