[WikiEN-l] Re: For anyone who thought NPOV wasn't all that hard
Koltwills at aol.com
Koltwills at aol.com
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
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list