Newt's New Contract

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Rissask

I wonder what will be the 'next big thing' after all this green trend burns out after a few years running with no more Katrina-scale crises?

Just curious.



(hey kirbyfan, you're still giving people a hard time about Wiki links? Still not clear on the whole 'Wiki pages actually have links to the right links' notion?)

Are you saying that Katrina is somehow driving all of the attention on things green?

[kirbyfan]

(hey kirbyfan, you're still giving people a hard time about Wiki links? Still not clear on the whole 'Wiki pages actually have links to the right links' notion?)

Yep I am!

If the wiki pages have links to the appropriate source then please link to the source not someones opinion of it. Its like quoting something from the NY Times and then posting a link to the front page and telling people to find it themselves.

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Are you saying that Katrina is somehow driving all of the attention on things green?

I dont think thats what she saying.....that not what I got from it at least.

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Are you saying that Katrina is somehow driving all of the attention on things green?

My goodness Jacko. Not at all. (although Katrina certainly direct more attention to global warming.)

I am saying that 'being green' is certainly a trendy topic these days.

And I am saying that humans are short sighted and have short memories.

And since it has been treated and described by some as such an imminent danger, many will be expecting some actual imminent dangers....and unless they see them, and soon, and BIG crises, not ones that don't make much of an impact on them personally, many people will move on to worrying about and paying attention to something else.

If the wiki pages have links to the appropriate source then please link to the source not someones opinion of it. Its like quoting something from the NY Times and then posting a link to the front page and telling people to find it themselves.

A Wiki write up is not typically subjective, but supposed to be unbiased, like an encyclopedia. If it is found to be biased, they flag it and review it.
I don't agree with the second sentence at all, it doesn't make sense.

[JimmyMN]

Newt has this effect on just about everyone!!

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Rissask

My goodness Jacko. Not at all. (although Katrina certainly direct more attention to global warming.)

I am saying that 'being green' is certainly a trendy topic these days.

And I am saying that humans are short sighted and have short memories.

And since it has been treated and described by some as such an imminent danger, many will be expecting some actual imminent dangers....and unless they see them, and soon, and BIG crises, not ones that don't make much of an impact on them personally, many people will move on to worrying about and paying attention to something else.



A Wiki write up is not typically subjective, but supposed to be unbiased, like an encyclopedia. If it is found to be biased, they flag it and review it.
I don't agree with the second sentence at all, it doesn't make sense.

That would be very short-sighted of them imo.....they should listen to Newt (well try to anyway), President Bush(I know its not easy) and Al Gore to help them better understand the problem and what they can do about it.

[Rissask]

That would be very short-sighted of them imo

Didn't I say it would be .....c'est la vie, mon ami...c'est la vie.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Didn't I say it would be .....c'est la vie, mon ami...c'est la vie.

You just can't handle that I agree with you?

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by Rissask

A Wiki write up is not typically subjective, but supposed to be unbiased, like an encyclopedia. If it is found to be biased, they flag it and review it.
I don't agree with the second sentence at all, it doesn't make sense.

Oh really? Well lets put this Wikipedia nonsense to rest once and for all...:

Wikipedia has been both praised and criticized for being open to editing by anyone. Larry Sanger, who played a key role in the founding of Wikipedia[1] but left the project in 2002,[2] criticized Wikipedia in late 2004 for having an "anti-elitist" philosophy of active contempt for expertise.[3] Some librarians, academics, and editors of other encyclopedias consider it to have little utility as a reference work.[4][5] Most university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources.[6] One university program and several schools have even banned Wikipedia citations specifically.[7]
Wikipedia's policies state that assertions should be supported by reliable, published sources—ideally, by peer reviewed publications.[8] Jimmy Wales, the de facto leader of Wikipedia,[9] stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate as primary sources, and should not be relied upon as authoritative.[10] In a 2005 study, Emigh and Herring note that there are not yet many formal studies of Wikipedia or its model, and suggest that Wikipedia achieves its results by social means—self-norming, a core of active users watching for problems, and expectations of encyclopedic text drawn from the wider culture.[11]
[edit]Usefulness as a reference
Wikipedia acknowledges that it should not be used as a primary source for serious research.[12] Librarian Philip Bradley acknowledged in an October 2004 interview with The Guardian that the concept behind the site was in theory a "lovely idea," but that he would not use it in practice, and that he is "not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window."[13]
Robert McHenry, former editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica said in November 2004:
"The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him."[5]

oh and theres this as well:

Robert McHenry said that Wikipedia errs in billing itself as an encyclopedia, because that word implies a level of authority and accountability that they believe cannot be possessed by an openly editable reference. McHenry argues that
"to the ordinary user, the turmoil and uncertainty that may lurk beneath the surface of a Wikipedia article are invisible. He or she arrives at a Wikipedia article via Google, perhaps, and sees that it is part of what claims to be an "encyclopedia". This is a word that carries a powerful connotation of reliability. The typical user doesn't know how conventional encyclopedias achieve reliability, only that they do."[18]
Frequent Wikipedia critic Orlowski wrote on a December 2005 oped at The Register:
"If what we today know as 'Wikipedia' had started life as something called, let's say —'Jimbo's Big Bag O'Trivia'— we doubt if it would be the problem it has become. Wikipedia is indeed, as its supporters claim, a phenomenal source of pop culture trivia. Maybe a 'Big Bag O'Trivia' is all Jimbo ever wanted. Maybe not. "For sure a libel is a libel, but the outrage would have been far more muted if the Wikipedia project didn't make such grand claims for itself. The problem with this vanity exercise is one that it's largely created for itself. The public has a firm idea of what an 'encyclopedia' is, and it's a place where information can generally be trusted, or at least slightly more trusted than what a labyrinthine, mysterious bureaucracy can agree upon, and surely more trustworthy than a piece of spontaneous graffiti — and Wikipedia is a king-sized cocktail of the two."[19]
A number of academics – such as Sarah Deutch, dean of social sciences and professor of history at Duke University, and Margaret Humphries, professor of history and associate clinical professor of medicine at Duke – have criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source.[4] Many Wikipedia editors do not have degrees or other credentials generally recognized in academia.[20] The use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper. Several educational institutions have blocked Wikipedia in the past while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources.[4] University of Maryland professor of physics Robert L. Park has characterized Wikipedia as a target for "purveyors of pseudoscience."[21]

[roni]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Oh really? Well lets put this Wikipedia nonsense to rest once and for all...:

oh and theres this as well:

Good to see you ran away from those values congressmen divorcing their cancerous hospital bed-ridden wives and encouraging their partners to have abortions - not to mention those Republican candidates kissing racist ass at that Bob Jones University in a lame attempt to get right wing racist Republican votes in the primary elections

Wiki is an easier target, I would guess, and detracts attention from those Realities.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Oh really? Well lets put this Wikipedia nonsense to rest once and for all...:

oh and theres this as well:

You really think that is going to do it, huh?

[RonH]

Originally Posted by roni

Good to see you ran away from those values congressmen divorcing their cancerous hospital bed-ridden wives and encouraging their partners to have abortions - not to mention those Republican candidates kissing racist ass at that Bob Jones University in a lame attempt to get right wing racist Republican votes in the primary elections

Wiki is an easier target, I would guess, and detracts attention from those Realities.

Did we have more than 1 congressman leave their cancer ridden wife? And were they Dems, or Pubs. And I know sometimes I have to kiss racist asses in my work life, but I do it because I have to make money, ( so I can go to the caribbean ). I don't like it, but thats the way it is.
And Ron, you know darn well, that Bobs Jones "U" is a great school for higher education.

[roni]

Originally Posted by RonH

Did we have more than 1 congressman leave their cancer ridden wife? And were they Dems, or Pubs. And I know sometimes I have to kiss racist asses in my work life, but I do it because I have to make money, ( so I can go to the caribbean ). I don't like it, but thats the way it is.
And Ron, you know darn well, that Bobs Jones "U" is a great school for higher education.

I cannot imagine that a fundamentalist, racist university has a good science curriculum. I wonder how they handle evolution...

And I cannot imagine it is a very good school if you wanna date someone from a different race -



say a Texan, for example

I'd like to date me a couple of those

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Oh really? Well lets put this Wikipedia nonsense to rest once and for all...:


oh and theres this as well:

really? And where did you get those quotes from...WIKIPEDIA, right?
Dat's funny. Using quotes from Wiki to discredit.... itself.
And, if it's unreliable, why should I pay attention anyway?

[melliedee]

Kirby, it is true that academia discourages students from citing wiki as a source in papers, but for a forum like this I think it is more than sufficient for broad historical background, side by side analysis of opposing views, and to provide multiple links to more legit, peer-reviewed articles. I have no problem reading a wiki link and determining for myself how worthwhile the information is. Just my two cents.