[WikiEN-l] Re: For anyone who thought NPOV wasn't all that hard

Wed Oct 26 21:51:47 UTC 2005

In a message dated 10/26/2005 4:01:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com writes:

Colleges are dispensers of job training, warehouses that sell  knowledge.

You go there to get certified. They used to be  places where you went to
get an Education.

There's more to  being an educated person than stuffing your head full of
data and  info that which is useful in your career. Go to DeVry if you
want  vo-tech training.

They even took Logic out of the curriculum. You  don't learn obvious,
classically tried and true things like the  syllogism. What's that, it
sounds dirty ("jism").

* All men  are mortal.
* Socrates is a man.
* Therefore, Socrates is  mortal.

If A is true, than B is true.
But B is not  true!
Then A could not POSSIBLY be true.

And that's the simple  stuff. Don't forget the rhetorical fallacies like
ad hominem, guilt  by association, non sequitor, circular argument, and
dozens of others  which are STILL BEING USED today. 

The worst part is that  Wikipedians use these fallacies on talk pages.

Ed  Poor

I agree.

It is a sad thing to say that people just don't -- and too often even  can't 
-- think/reason anymore, but it's true.  Critical  thinking skills simply are 
not taught/honed anymore -- certainly not in  this nation's public education 
system.  I daresay the same is very  likely true in our institutions of higher 
learning.

(I must say, though, I detested logic class.  Boring as  hell.)

These days, people are as intelligent (potentially, at least) as they  ever 
were; they're just dull-witted and undisciplined.

I've come to realize that discussing points of contention with some  
Wikipedians is as pointless as would be ramming their heads against a  brick wall.  I 
used to think some of them were being  argumentative/purposely obtuse just for 
the hell of it

And while many of them are, I now know, of course, that a lot of  them, 
unfortunately, just don't get it.

When I encounter that sort of thing, if I'm not in the mood to  continue to 
engage them, I just throw up my hands, leave it be, and then  go back later and 
fix things. (Like "Melanin.")

The more popular/widely known Wikipedia becomes, the more frequently  
sloppily written contributions will appear.  I don't have a lot  of respect for what 
this nation's educational institutions and world  schlock culture are 
producing these days.  Wikipedia will continue to  attract mediocre, limited minds 
with lots of rigid opinions backed by  precious little real knowledge, 
understanding or  perspective.  Syntax, grammar and spelling -- even, to some  extent, 
article structure -- can be fixed relatively easily with some  dedicated copy 
editing.  But a populist idea like Wikipedia in the  hands of anyone with 
access to a computer and an ISP is doomed from  the start as a reliable source of 
authoritative information.

That's all there is to it.

But the idea IS a luminous one -- isn't it? :p

Wikipedia runs the gamut from stellar to squalid. I love it. I hate  it.

Right now, I can live with that.  And when I decide I  can't/won't any 
longer, then I'll simply vote with my web browser and  leave.

'S as simple as that.

K