What Is The Level Of Acceptance For 'wiki-Pedia' References?

[scherado]

I have boycotted "wikipedia" for many years. I don't know exactly how long--10, possibly. My initial reason boycott was due to it's political content. (I've boycotted Gew-gul search since 2007 for another reason, I know for sure--another topic.)

 

I never read anything from 'wikipedia' and never trust it; never click any link to wikipedia generated within search results. I know that I can't be sure which of my non-wikipedia sources use but don't cite wikipedia.

 

-----------------------------EDit---------------

 

Reference to Frontpage article removed due to accusation: "run by far right publication run almost entirely by Likudnik Jews with a pro-Israel agenda.

 

"You don't have to be a Jew to disapprove of murder" -Roger Waters, Too Much Rope

 

-----------------------------End Edit ---------

 

Is there acceptance of references from this site on this forum?

Edited September 13, 2017 by scherado

[exchemist]

I have boycotted "wikipedia" for many years. I don't know exactly how long--10, possibly. My initial reason boycott was due to it's political content. (I've boycotted Gew-gul search since 2007 for another reason, I know for sure--another topic.)

 

I never read anything from 'wikipedia' and never trust it; never click any link to wikipedia generated within search results. I know that I can't be sure which of my non-wikipedia sources use but don't cite wikipedia.

 

About four years ago I read this article:

.

 

More reasons for my boycott and disregard for wookeepeedeeUh; not that more was needed.

 

Is there acceptance of references from this site on this forum?

I see no reason why Wikipaedia would not be a perfectly acceptable reference, for most subjects. I have nearly always found it reliable. 

 

Whereas I would be very sceptical of anything I read on a source such as Front Page. It seems to be very obviously a far right publication run almost entirely by Likudnik Jews with a pro-Israel agenda. If you look at "Who We Are" on the website you are taken directly to....  "David Horowitz school of political warfare": http://www.davidhorowitzfreedomcenter.org/school-for-political-warfare/    Yikes!!! 

 

No thank you.  

[scherado]

I see no reason why Wikipaedia would not be a perfectly acceptable reference, for most subjects. I have nearly always found it reliable.

 

Whereas I would be very sceptical of anything I read on a source such as Front Page. It seems to be very obviously a far right publication run almost entirely by Likudnik Jews with a pro-Israel agenda. If you look at "Who We Are" on the website you are taken directly to.... "David Horowitz school of political warfare": http://www.davidhorowitzfreedomcenter.org/school-for-political-warfare/ Yikes!!!

 

No thank you.

.

I don't think anyone who wants to be taken seriously would rely on that site. I do know one high school teacher who will not permit it to be used as a primary source, only secondary. I think he is too lenient in that regard.

 

I can report from my exerience that when I first began posting at an evolution debate forum--the one to which I alluded in my introduction--I refused to accept references to that site. The references to that site disappeared after a while. I did the same on any facepalm groups of which I had been a member. I didn't get any vile responses, as your.

 

Please note that the truth-value of the article does not change anything. I was boycotting the site for about six years before the alleged “Storming Wikipedia” activism and putative corruption of the content on that site. For the record, David Horowitz did not write the article. Secondly, David Horowitz was raised as a "red diaper doper baby" and was of the far left, a genuine Communist for many years of his adult life. Does this make him immune to criticism or fallability or curruption? Do I need to answer such a dumb question?

 

Welcome as first person on my ignore list, and after my 10th post! Congratulations. I thank you for the reply.

 

The cause:

.

...Likudnik Jews with a pro-Israel agenda.

...

.

(Emphasis is mine.)

 

Do I expect anyone here to abandon their reliance on the subject site? I don't know.

 

Will I accept any references to that site in comments directed toward me? No.

[exchemist]

.

I don't think anyone who wants to be taken seriously would rely on that site. I do know one high school teacher who will not permit it to be used as a primary source, only secondary. I think he is too lenient in that regard.

 

I can report from my exerience that when I first began posting at an evolution debate forum--the one to which I alluded in my introduction--I refused to accept references to that site. The references to that site disappeared after a while. I did the same on any facepalm groups of which I had been a member. I didn't get any vile responses, as your.

 

Please note that the truth-value of the article does not change anything. I was boycotting the site for about six years before the alleged “Storming Wikipedia” activism and putative corruption of the content on that site. For the record, David Horowitz did not write the article. Secondly, David Horowitz was raised as a "red diaper doper baby" and was of the far left, a genuine Communist for many years of his adult life. Does this make him immune to criticism or fallability or curruption? Do I need to answer such a dumb question?

 

Welcome as first person on my ignore list, and after my 10th post! Congratulations. I thank you for the reply.

 

The cause:

.

.

(Emphasis is mine.)

 

Do I expect anyone here to abandon their reliance on the subject site? I don't know.

 

Will I accept any references to that site in comments directed toward me? No.

Jolly good.

 

However you will have to ignore me "manually", as there is no "Ignore" functionality on this site.

 

And don't expect me to return the compliment :).

[scherado]

Did I know what "Likudnik" meant before I did a search? No. In my search, I found this:

.

... The Jew-hater and the maligned Jew face off eternally, one playing offense and the other defense. This is the anti-Semites’ revenge: They make us sound like ranters when we complain about them.

 

But it’s crucial for Jews to talk about anti-Semitism, even as we hear that Jews are so secure these days that anti-Semitism can’t be very significant; that Jews discuss anti-Semitism in order to claim special privileges; that Jew haters are merely nutty rather than dangerous; that talking about anti-Semitism in the Muslim world means that you are a “Likudnik,” or something worse. We have to rebut these wrong-headed sentiments. But a further challenge looms: When we talk about anti-Semitism, we risk confusing our personal wounds with the larger history we’re trying to grasp. Scholarly detachment is a needed remedy. But as two recent books show, being detached is harder than it looks, since even the most neutral academic feels bound to strike back, to answer the anti-Semite’s demonic vigor with a few accusations of his or her own.

...

.

(source)

.

...

It seems to be very obviously a far right publication run almost entirely by Likudnik Jews with a pro-Israel agenda.

...

.

Does my new knowledge of the meaning of "Likudnik" make the newly-ignored person's comment less vile? No.

 

Is there anyone else who would like to make any comments about "Jews" at this time?

[Buffy]

.

I don't think anyone who wants to be taken seriously would rely on that site. I do know one high school teacher who will not permit it to be used as a primary source, only secondary. I think he is too lenient in that regard.

 

 

Actually, you'll find that as of now, virtually every school system in the US has a policy not to allow Wikipedia to be used as a reference in any assignments. My daughter was one of the first classes to grow up with that edict, and I always told her, go ahead and look, but if you've got to support something with a reference, go elsewhere.

 

Personally I find it incredibly useful because it does have an amazing wealth of information at one's fingertips, and nothing else like it exists that's free (Encyclopedia Britannica is $75/year, but is excellent and of course the content there is vetted by experts). As long as you're willing to accept it's faults and do the extra work of validating what you're looking at--which quite frankly, you should do no matter *what* source you're using--then not using it at all is probably a loss for you.

 

 

Fortunately for serious minds, a bias recognized is a bias sterilized, :phones:

Buffy

[Buffy]

Does my new knowledge of the meaning of "Likudnik" make the newly-ignored person's comment less vile? No.

 

 

Well the reference link doesn't really say anything about the point you're responding to exchemist on: it just says that some Muslims use it as a kind of anti-Semitic slur. I can tell you though I know a lot of Israelis who use it as a slur against the extremists who dominate the Likud party, so it's not strictly anti-Semitic at all. Netanyahu is an extremist, and if it were not for the anomalies in the Israeli constitution giving the orthodox parties undue influence in forming governments in the Knesset, he'd be out on his *** in no time.

 

I'd suggest if you want to carry on about this topic which has nothing to do with the title, that you open a new thread.

 

Shabat shalom.

 

 

Staying in Likud means wasting time in political squabbles rather than acting on behalf of the good of the country, :phones:

Buffy

[exchemist]

Did I know what "Likudnik" meant before I did a search? No. In my search, I found this:

.

.

(source)

.

.

Does my new knowledge of the meaning of "Likudnik" make the newly-ignored person's comment less vile? No.

 

Is there anyone else who would like to make any comments about "Jews" at this time?

Just for other readers, this Scherado person is doing what often happens in the US. People on the right often like  to conflate criticism of Israel and of the very powerful  - and obvious - Israel Lobby in American politics (cf. Walt and Mearsheimer's excellent book) with antisemitism. To this end they strike the pose of pretending that very mention of the word "Jew" is ipso facto off limits and "vile". 

 

Well ballocks to that. Antisemitism and dislike of right-wing Israeli politics are quite different things.

 

You do not have to be Einstein (or Eichmann?) to realise that a great number of the people active in the Israel Lobby in the USA are Jewish or of Jewish ancestry. This is not at all remarkable or in any way sinister.

 

What it does  mean, though, is that if you come across a right-wing US political website, and you find the contributing writers have a preponderance of Jewish names, you know immediately that you have come across another organ of the Israel Lobby.

 

You will probably gather from the foregoing that I am personally strongly opposed to the policies of Netanyahu. More broadly I think the Israel Lobby has a lot to answer for, not least their influence in bringing about the catastrophic invasion of Iraq in 2003. So I have no time for websites like FrontPage. More on David Horowitz here: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Horowitz_David/

 

You will see this amply supports my comments.    

 

As for the meaning of "Likudnik", Scherado has had to go hunting for a suitable biased definition from his far right Likudnik sources, to imply it means "antisemite". Quite clever, that - and shows how the Israel Lobby works so hard to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, just as I have been saying. So ballocks to that, too. Here it is, being used at the time of the Iraq War, by a more mainstream publication: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/kausfiles/2003/02/the_likudnik_factor.html 

Edited September 9, 2017 by exchemist

[exchemist]

 

Actually, you'll find that as of now, virtually every school system in the US has a policy not to allow Wikipedia to be used as a reference in any assignments. My daughter was one of the first classes to grow up with that edict, and I always told her, go ahead and look, but if you've got to support something with a reference, go elsewhere.

 

Personally I find it incredibly useful because it does have an amazing wealth of information at one's fingertips, and nothing else like it exists that's free (Encyclopedia Britannica is $75/year, but is excellent and of course the content there is vetted by experts). As long as you're willing to accept it's faults and do the extra work of validating what you're looking at--which quite frankly, you should do no matter *what* source you're using--then not using it at all is probably a loss for you.

 

 

Fortunately for serious minds, a bias recognized is a bias sterilized, :phones:

Buffy

 

I strongly agree. I find that almost all the science articles are quite good and generally well-written. Only on rare occasion have I found things that did not stack up with other sources. Hence my response earlier (this is a SCIENCE forum, not a politics forum, after all). 

 

Here in the UK there is no diktat advising against Wiki in school work, though there is advice to use more than one source. This strikes me as a good balance. 

[scherado]

...

I'd suggest if you want to carry on about this topic which has nothing to do with the title, that you open a new thread.

 

Shabat shalom.

...

.

I most certainly don't "want to carry on about this topic". There will be no "Jew" thread started by me. That would be preposterous.

 

I do not know the content of "exchemist"'s subsequent posts.

 

My question above, "Is there anyone else who would like to make any comments about 'Jews' at this time?" was an attempt to ... how should I put it, setting feces for flies. I can assure you that I don't want to discuss anything regarding Jews in this thread. "exchemist" introduced the subject and I'd only intended to identify any other "flies."

 

 

 

 

L

[Buffy]

My question above, "Is there anyone else who would like to make any comments about 'Jews' at this time?" was an attempt to ... how should I put it, setting feces for flies. I can assure you that I don't want to discuss anything regarding Jews in this thread. "exchemist" introduced the subject and I'd only intended to identify any other "flies."

I'd suggest you shouldn't cut yourself off so quickly from people who respond. In this case you posted a link to Front Page, and exchemist responded that it is far off toward the right-wing, and thus is not a reliable source. Personally, I am in complete agreement with him on that assessment: Do you know who Ben Shapiro or David Horowitz are? They've both got well-established associations with Likud, and thus they're pretty close to what might be correctly characterized as "Likudniks" by many on the Labor/Kadima/Hatuah members.

 

His use of the term "Likudnik" while pejorative is--as I pointed out above--not definitionally "anti-Semitic."

 

You may wish to reconsider avoiding his, or other people's posts without considering them in some detail.

 

Kind of like we're doing with yours right now.

 

 

Religion is like a pair of shoes.....Find one that fits for you, but don't make me wear your shoes, :phones:

Buffy

[scherado]

I'd suggest you shouldn't cut yourself off so quickly from people who respond. In this case you posted a link to Front Page, and exchemist responded that it is far off toward the right-wing, and thus is not a reliable source. Personally, I am in complete agreement with him on that assessment: Do you know who Ben Shapiro or David Horowitz are? They've both got well-established associations with Likud, and thus they're pretty close to what might be correctly characterized as "Likudniks" by many on the Labor/Kadima/Hatuah members.

 

His use of the term "Likudnik" while pejorative is--as I pointed out above--not definitionally "anti-Semitic."

 

You may wish to reconsider avoiding his, or other people's posts without considering them in some detail.

 

Kind of like we're doing with yours right now.

...

.

"exchemist"'s use of "Likudnik" was pejorative, I agree with you. I will remind you that I did NOT know the meaning of the word "Likudnik" at the moment I was was offended by: "It seems to be very obviously a far right publication run almost entirely by Likudnik Jews with a pro-Israel agenda.

 

Do you understand what I mean?

 

I will populate my ignore list at my discretion without help from anyone.

[Buffy]

"exchemist"'s use of "Likudnik" was pejorative, I agree with you.

Okay, but as I say, it's pretty mild, and half of Israelis freely use it. It's pretty much equivalent to "right-wing nut job" in the US.

 

I will remind you that I did NOT know the meaning of the word "Likudnik" at the moment I was was offended by: "It seems to be very obviously a far right publication run almost entirely by Likudnik Jews with a pro-Israel agenda.

So remove the mildly pejorative "Likudnik" and what you're left with is a completely factual statement. Ben Shapiro and David Horowitz are Jews and do run a far-right publication with a pro-Israel agenda.

 

So...

 

Do you understand what I mean?

Not in the least. What are you offended by?

 

 

To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else, :phones:

Buffy

[sanctus]

Ok so off topic first, was happy to see a new very active member, liked your intro, you put much more effort into it than I :-). Then you start right away with openly stating you ignore all posts by one member. WOW, I wonder what are you doing on a forum if you do not want to hear opposing ideas? Really, if you reply to only one thing of my post, reply to me why are you here? I mean, sentences like you saying you have no clue what Exchemist said, make it useless to discuss with you since you would not follow the discussion in the topic...

Do you think we want anti-semites here? Did you join this forum because you thought it was accepted? Just for the record, speaking as an admin now, antisemites and in general hate-speech leads to almost immediate ban (almost, because if we do not see it right away someone has to report it). But criticising the actions of the Isreali government/policies has nothing to do with antisemitism.

Back on topic, I think wikipedia is a reliable source depending on what you look for:
It is NOT reliable for anything that has a political or religious agenda (history, politics, evolution, etc.)
It is reliable for mathematics, physics, etc.; like if you want to know what self-adjoint operators are, then wikipedia is reliable.

[scherado]

Ok so off topic first, was happy to see a new very active member, liked your intro, you put much more effort into it than I :-). Then you start right away with openly stating you ignore all posts by one member. WOW, I wonder what are you doing on a forum if you do not want to hear opposing ideas? Really, if you reply to only one thing of my post, reply to me why are you here? I mean, sentences like you saying you have no clue what Exchemist said, make it useless to discuss with you since you would not follow the discussion in the topic...

 

Do you think we want anti-semites here? Did you join this forum because you thought it was accepted? Just for the record, speaking as an admin now, antisemites and in general hate-speech leads to almost immediate ban (almost, because if we do not see it right away someone has to report it). But criticising the actions of the Isreali government/policies has nothing to do with antisemitism.

...

.

Unless it does. Do I need to explain that sentence? I will if it is necessary. Those three words are a direct and unassailable refutation of your assertion. I will be the judge of whose criticism of "Isreali government/policies" is antisemetic. I can't believe I needed to type that sentence.

.

... Did you join this forum because you thought it was accepted?

.

Preposterous question. Further, I did not make it clear-enough in post #12 above that I was very surprised to read the content in "exchemist"'s reply in post #2, though I have been exposed to those sentiments and beliefs over many years and my need to define "Likudniks", notwithstanding.

 

Back on topic, if desired.

Edited September 11, 2017 by scherado

[scherado]

...

Back on topic, I think wikipedia is a reliable source depending on what you look for:

It is NOT reliable for anything that has a political or religious agenda (history, politics, evolution, etc.)

It is reliable for mathematics, physics, etc.; like if you want to know what self-adjoint operators are, then wikipedia is reliable.

.

The fact that you may be accurate about your assessment of when and when-not the site is reliable, that fact does not address the fact that perpetuation of the site is made through any usage of that site. In other words, any usage has the effect of promotion of the site. This makes your use of it perpetuation of the problem of it's unreliability.

 

I chose to NOT be part of that problem.

 

You have chosen to be part of that problem.

 

To quote the detestable Roger Waters in his brilliant 72 minute release Amused To Death:

.

...

We've got a warehouse of butter

We've got oceans of wine

We've got famine when we need it

Got a designer crime

We've got Mercedes

We've got Porsche

Ferrari and Rolls Royce

We've got a choice

...

.

(source)

[exchemist]

 

Back on topic, I think wikipedia is a reliable source depending on what you look for:

It is NOT reliable for anything that has a political or religious agenda (history, politics, evolution, etc.)

It is reliable for mathematics, physics, etc.; like if you want to know what self-adjoint operators are, then wikipedia is reliable.

I'm interested that you would not use Wiki for history. I have found it fairly good for that. Of course, with ANY history research, one needs several articles in order to iron out bias and form a good picture, but any historian is aware of the need to do that.