Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

[coberst]

Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

 

The following is a paragraph from a Wikipedia entry for Thomas Kuhn’s book titled “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

 

Quote:

“The changes that occur in politics, society and business are often expressed in Kuhnian terms, however poor their parallel with the practice of science may seem to scientists and historians of science. The terms "paradigm" and "paradigm shift" have become such notorious clichés and buzzwords that they are viewed in many circles as being effectively devoid of content and their use in these contexts rarely has any firm foundation in Kuhn's original definitions.”

 

This paragraph gives us some insight into the dangers inherent in our sound-bite, bumper-sticker society, in which many people gain a small fragment of knowledge and from this fragment are deluded into thinking that they comprehend very complex ideas.

 

I am not much of a user of Wikipedia and thus have little knowledge upon which I can answer my own question.

[pgrmdave]

Coberst, what exactly are you asking? I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about.

[Cedars]

Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

 

The following is a paragraph from a Wikipedia entry for Thomas Kuhn’s book titled “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

 

Quote:

“The changes that occur in politics, society and business are often expressed in Kuhnian terms, however poor their parallel with the practice of science may seem to scientists and historians of science. The terms "paradigm" and "paradigm shift" have become such notorious clichés and buzzwords that they are viewed in many circles as being effectively devoid of content and their use in these contexts rarely has any firm foundation in Kuhn's original definitions.”

 

This paragraph gives us some insight into the dangers inherent in our sound-bite, bumper-sticker society, in which many people gain a small fragment of knowledge and from this fragment are deluded into thinking that they comprehend very complex ideas.

 

I am not much of a user of Wikipedia and thus have little knowledge upon which I can answer my own question.

 

Wikipedia, like any other source of information has its flaws and potential for errors. If I am not sure about wiki info, I do look for other things to support the statements. All around I have found it to be a good source of general information in some areas, and very detailed in others. Depends on the contributors involvement.

 

Reading your quote and conclusion, I dont know how you can state anyone would be deluded into thinking they have comprehended a complex idea. The quote is a warning that applying Kuhns book to such a broad range of ideas and functions is probably a mistake being as it seems, the authors intent was not to cover such a range. Personally I think its good to issue such a warning. Heres an example: people taking an idea (body language) and twisting it into something it wasnt meant to be used for (profiling for drugs).

 

After looking up the info regarding this particular book and the quote, your point isnt really about wikipedia is it, its about context and whether 'sound bytes' are an appropriate method of gathering information and creating your own opinion on the topic. If I am wrong about the intent of your post, I apologise for the points I am about to make.

 

People, with their diversity are going to be interested in a wide range of topics. Some may be very into mathematics (not me) but have no interest in birds and their habits. But a sound byte on the recovery of eagles may give the mathematician enough information to decide all the tax money that went to preserving habitat, the banning of DDT, and the fact that he could not build his house in a certain area to protect an active nesting tree, was a legitimate effort and one he/she could support.

 

Now put in a mother of 3 who does not have an interest in math or birds. Her interests may be in providing housing, feeding the children, getting them schooled. The sound bytes may or may not impress her opinion that the money spent on preserving habitat for eagles, would be better spent on schooling children. Her opinion, may or may not change with more information. Her interests and priorities are what they are. And it is her tax money that is being spent on this idea which she holds no interest in.

 

The mathematician may agree with the mother, feeling these are important issues too and figures out the cost ratio of tax dollars spent on habitat vs education and finds that the pennies per dollar will not make a significant impact on the three childrens education when divided up among all the other people.

 

The birder may think maybe she shouldnt have had 3 kids.

 

None of the three characters above is right or wrong with their interests or their opinions based on sound bytes. But sound bytes do provide information so ignorance on a topic is reduced and in the best case, they inspire someone to find out more, and provide enough information so the curious mind knows where to look (such as an authors name).

[TheFaithfulStone]

Hey, Wikipedia may not be much of a source for "real" topics - but if you want to know about Transformers, Airwolf, or the Smurfs, then it's the world's authority.

 

TFS

[Zythryn]

Hey, Wikipedia may not be much of a source for "real" topics - but if you want to know about Transformers, Airwolf, or the Smurfs, then it's the world's authority.

 

TFS

 

I have found Wikipedia to be quite good. There is the potential for errors, just as with any other source of information.

A study was recently done about the accuracy of Wikipedia vs The Encyclopia Britanica. Wikipedia actually did very well (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm).

 

Conisdering it is 100% public contributions, to do almost as well as The Encylopedia Britanica is pretty impressive:)

 

The other thing I like is if you find something wrong, you can correct it.

[coberst]

Cedars

 

 

I call our society the sound-bite society because we so often consider the sound-bite or bumper-sticker to be sufficient knowledge for anyone. In that illusion we do not become very intellectually sophisticated.

[InfiniteNow]

I call our society the sound-bite society because we so often consider the sound-bite or bumper-sticker to be sufficient knowledge for anyone.

We do? Who thinks that?

[coberst]

Coberst, what exactly are you asking? I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about.

 

 

I call our society the sound-bite society because we so often consider the sound-bite or bumper-sticker to be sufficient knowledge for anyone. In that illusion we do not become very intellectually sophisticated.

[coberst]

We do? Who thinks that?

 

This quote from Wiki is an indication of what I mean

“The changes that occur in politics, society and business are often expressed in Kuhnian terms, however poor their parallel with the practice of science may seem to scientists and historians of science. The terms "paradigm" and "paradigm shift" have become such notorious clichés and buzzwords that they are viewed in many circles as being effectively devoid of content and their use in these contexts rarely has any firm foundation in Kuhn's original definitions.”

 

I often get a response from a reader of one of my posts "everybody knows that (bumper sticker phrase)" The reader that makes such a reply considers the short phrase says it all about the concept that I have elaborated about.

[InfiniteNow]

Okay, my understanding is thus. Perhaps you can confirm it's accuracy.

 

When you said "we," you actually meant the first-person "I," referring to just yourself.

[Cedars]

Cedars

 

I call our society the sound-bite society because we so often consider the sound-bite or bumper-sticker to be sufficient knowledge for anyone. In that illusion we do not become very intellectually sophisticated.

 

 

As far as a bumpersticker response, whether or not it is appropriate would depend on whether it summed up the condition correctly or not.

 

~My H.S. dropout can beat up your honor student~

 

http://www.internetbumperstickers.com/

 

OK back to your soundbyte.... Are you saying that unless a person is intellectually sophisticated they shouldnt argue with you?

[TheFaithfulStone]

When you said "we," you actually meant the first-person "I," referring to just yourself.

 

It's the royal we.

 

I'd argue that not all knowledge requires a sophisticated understanding of the subject. For example, I have a very general understanding of relativity. It is not sufficient to argue with Q about it, but it is sufficient to argue with your general FTL crackpot.

 

coberst is right in that you cannot have a sophisticated argument about gay rights with someone with an "Adam and Steve" bumper sticker - but that doesn't mean that you couldn't have a VERY in depth conversation with them about something else - like quantum physics, or agriculture, or welding, or electronics, or something.

 

Interestingly, the word "sophisticated" and "sophistry" have the same root word.

 

TFS

[Zythryn]

...coberst is right in that you cannot have a sophisticated argument about gay rights with someone with an "Adam and Steve" bumper sticker - but that doesn't mean that you couldn't have a VERY in depth conversation with them about something else - like quantum physics, or agriculture, or welding, or electronics, or something.

 

One important distinction.

You can have a very sophisticated argument with someone with an "Adam and Steve" bumper sticker. The presense of a bumper sticker does not mean that is the limit of their position. I would agree that you couldn't have a very sophisticated argument with their bumper sticker though:doh:

[TheFaithfulStone]

Fair enough. If the bumper sticker adequately represents their knowledge of the issue however - it would be difficil.

 

TFS

[Zythryn]

Fair enough. If the bumper sticker adequately represents their knowledge of the issue however - it would be difficil.

 

TFS

 

 

Very true, however I don't believe that is the case.

True, sound bites and cute slogans are rampant in our society. I believe that you really can't place a well stated detailed argument on a car bumper, while a cute slogan will fit.

 

While I don't hold the average intellect in as poor esteem as you, I would agree that cute slogans have more infuence over people, even if they are not the limit of peoples knowledge.

[TheFaithfulStone]

While I don't hold the average intellect in as poor esteem as you

 

Hey now! Didn't I just say you could have a discussion about quantum mechanics with the guy?

 

I think it's unfair to say that I hold the "average intellect [in] poor esteem."

 

TFS

[Southtown]

Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

What is true authority?