Quote:

I would say that the truth, at least in relative terms, is what we agree it to be

Revision history of Earth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(cur|prev) 12:18 8 March 1563 The Church (talk) (259 bytes) Enough is enough, Galileo has been warned, further vandalism will result in ban
(cur|prev) 12:15 8 March 1563 The Church (talk) (486 bytes) (reverted to previous)
(cur|prev) 12:11 8 March 1563 Galileo (talk) (512 bytes) Rephrased to allow arbitrary orbits incl. one around the Earth
(cur|prev) 18:13 7 March 1563 The Church (talk) (881 bytes) (reverted to previous) no sources cited, only other source does not support it
(cur|prev) 18:11 8 March 1563 Galileo (talk) (912 bytes) Changed paragraph on orbits

(latest|earliest)

I would call into question the whole concept of citations and referencing the work of others. (Disregard the topic of Math which comes with logical proofs)

It isn't entirely wrong, but just because i found someone else who agrees with my point doesn't make my point true. It doesn't mean that what the other guy wrote is true either.

If current knowledge is based on prior knowledge and the prior knowledge is wrong, the current knowledge is also (likely) wrong, regardless of citations.

Quote:

Original post by leiavoia I would call into question the whole concept of citations and referencing the work of others. (Disregard the topic of Math which comes with logical proofs)

I take it you're a fan of plagarism, in that case? Using another's work without referencing/citing it or at the very least acknowledging who the original author was is plagarism.

Quote:

It isn't entirely wrong, but just because i found someone else who agrees with my point doesn't make my point true. It doesn't mean that what the other guy wrote is true either. If current knowledge is based on prior knowledge and the prior knowledge is wrong, the current knowledge is also (likely) wrong, regardless of citations.

If current knowledge is based on prior knowledge, and prior knowledge is wrong, and you have acknowledged that you did not construct the prior knowledge, then are you not absolved of blame in deriving your current knowledge from the prior knowledge?

That's that little "relative terms" disclaimer in action -- We only recognize it as truth *because* we recognize it as truth -- indeed their are those who still hold the early church's view.

At some point a certain "truth" reaches a critical mass and things tend to settle into a grove, but very rarely does anything not go through a certain amount of turmoil -- even very, very scientifically-sought things.

This is not to say that truth is, or even can be, willy-nilly. Actually, I find the real truths to be the ones which are most self-affirming both within itself, and with respect to the greater surrounding truth. In fact, that's much of the basis of scientific understanding: "It cannot be so because it is a violation of <some other thing>." All greater truths are built upon smaller ones, but at some, perhaps infinitesimal, level, something is taken as an assumption (e.g. a not-as-yet-understood observation or unproven inference). Its conceivable that an error in such an assumption would radically change what we believe to be true and indeed this has happened in the past, so, in a way, one might say that the greatest "truth" is only as strong as it's greatest underlying assumption -- though I do believe that this is a lot less dramatic in practice than it sounds.

Quote:

Original post by leiavoia I would call into question the whole concept of citations and referencing the work of others. (Disregard the topic of Math which comes with logical proofs) It isn't entirely wrong, but just because i found someone else who agrees with my point doesn't make my point true. It doesn't mean that what the other guy wrote is true either. If current knowledge is based on prior knowledge and the prior knowledge is wrong, the current knowledge is also (likely) wrong, regardless of citations.

Such system has been in practice for a while now. It's called scientific method. The opposite was Dogma.


Scientific method works on precisely this principle. A hypothesis is made. Attempts are then made to prove or disprove it. Scientific method does not postulate any "Truth". It merely represents the current state of knowledge along with supporting evidence. Anyone is free to challenge any part of it, and if faults are found, revisions are made. Perhaps the biggest challenge so far was the theory of relativity which challenged entire field of Newtonian physics. As it turned out, existing understanding was correct, but only for special, not general case.

Perhaps biggest difference from dogma is that it does not claim the truth or correctness and not only anticipates mistakes will be made, but the method itself is subject to same scrutiny. It also takes into consideration failings of Man (greed, ego, corruption, power and authority) by introducing a completely external process available to all.


In this regard, collaborative editing comes fairly close. It allows anyone to make amends, to provide new evidence or to challenge existing assumptions. For practical reasons, wikipedia uses moderation which keeps noise low. But moderation isn't strictly needed.

In science many questions are unanswered, inconclusive and/or unproven. Wikipedia allows for such claims to remain, at least for some time. Here it remains up to reader to remain rational.

Quote:

In science many questions are unanswered, inconclusive and/or unproven. Wikipedia allows for such claims to remain, at least for some time. Here it remains up to reader to remain rational.

Might I add curious. [smile]

Quote:

What I wanted to know was whether you investigated how wikipedia works, if you took the time to read any of their guidelines or reviewed their response to the issues you raised or if were you simply shooting from the hip based on scuttlebutt exchanged between you and your buddies

I have researched the topic enough to be confident in my position, but I can't say I read everything you are thinking of. I'm not sure what part of my position you are even trying to discredit.

Experts rate Wikipedia's accuracy higher than non-experts
Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia
Reliability of Wikipedia

Quote:

Original post by leiavoia I would call into question the whole concept of citations and referencing the work of others. ... If current knowledge is based on prior knowledge and the prior knowledge is wrong, the current knowledge is also (likely) wrong, regardless of citations.

That's no reason to question the concept, because citations aren't there to prove correctness! The point of citing references is so that it's possible for anyone to verify whether it's correct or not. They give you a paper trail where you can check if it's correct in regards to it's source, then check if it's sources are correct in regards to their sources, and so on, until you get to the basic axioms that it's all derived from.

[Edited by - Hodgman on November 23, 2010 11:35:22 PM]

I trust Wikipedia to find basic facts, but would look to it's citations for analysis. People on there to make their pet theory seem far far greater than it really is tend to ruin the validity of opinions found in the articles.


There are still innovations that can increase reliability by a small amount, so I suspect that reliability should increase over the next few years, but there's not a whole lot that can be done to improve reliability within the current framework of Wikipedia's rules [see here for more on what I mean].

It would depend on the topic really. If you're looking for history topics, then it's pretty accurate. Search for contemporary topics that are subject to much debate (Intifada??) and you don't get a very objective account. It's a starting point.

screw wikipedia heres the trustworthy encyclopedia
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page