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

[coberst]

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.

 

Good point. Sometimes I say 'we' when I mean 'most others', sometimes I say 'we' when I mean 'I' and sometimes I say 'I' when I mean 'I'. I suspect all polite conversation is done in this manner. Certainly political talk is often done in this way. One recent example was when Hastert said we take the blame for this happening.

[coberst]

 

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

 

No Anyone who can put together a coherent argument should do so.

[coberst]

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

 

I think that 'sophisticated' is a relative term and is one that has levels. It might be like the term 'hot'. A fourth grader is generally more sophisticated than a first grader, etc.

 

I would have assumed since both words start with 'soph'

that there would be some kind of relationship.

[coberst]

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

 

TFS

 

I think therein lay the rub. Many people think that, but I think that it is never the case.

 

In a bumper-sticker society most people do not recognize the degree of their igorance and thus never make an effort to overcome that ignorance. 'Bumper-sticker mentality is dangerous to democracy.' How about that for a bumper-sticker?

[coberst]

What is true authority?

 

Good question. I suspect it is a matter of judgment in every case. That is where the importance of CT (Critical Thinking) comes into play. CT is the art and science of good judgment.

[Cedars]

In a bumper-sticker society most people do not recognize the degree of their igorance and thus never make an effort to overcome that ignorance. 'Bumper-sticker mentality is dangerous to democracy.'

Could you elaborate on this point?

 

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.

I dont follow this line of reasoning. I consider the 'bumper sticker society' of say, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China (under Mao), etc., much more dangerous societies because they dont have the choices as this society does; in that it is a matter of choice whether someone takes a detailed interest in a subject here. Which is why it bothers me so much how the word 'ignorance' is tossed about. It is dismissive of the diversity of peoples interests.

 

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.

I hold (for the most part) the person who considers themselves the intellectual superior in a debate, as the party responsible for being able to convey their points well enough to the person who holds a lesser degree of knowledge, that the points made in the argument at least convey knowledge (it has to be comprehendable) and in the best case, provoke the 2nd parties interest enough to inspire learning more about the subject.

 

The point is, it is the speakers responsiblity to "know your audience".

 

Its not easy sometimes to remember where you came from and the times when you didnt know as much about a topic as you do now. Talking down to a person your trying to convey a meaning to will get you nowhere with someone who is mildly interested in a topic. Figuring out the audience's mindset and speaking to that point in time will get you much farther than becoming discouraged and presenting your points in an elitest tone.

 

And dont forget for every one post, there may be 10 persons reading and not posting.

[Zythryn]

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

TFS

 

My apologies, I may have been guilty of seeing a generalization where there wasn't one. That is the impression I got from your statement "coberst is right in that you cannot have a sophisticated argument about gay rights with someone with an "Adam and Steve" bumper sticker".

 

Would it have been accurate to say that you hold 'the ability of the bumper sticker owner to hold a sophisticated argument in low esteem'?

 

Do you propose that anyone with a bumper sticker is unable to hold a sophisticated argument on the topic of their bumper sticker but you can have a sophisticated discussion with them about anything else?

[TheFaithfulStone]

Do you propose that anyone with a bumper sticker is unable to hold a sophisticated argument on the topic of their bumper sticker but you can have a sophisticated discussion with them about anything else?

 

Not precisely - but I'd say that in general, I'd avoid discussions requiring subtle nuances with people who have inflammatory bumper stickers.

 

Examples -

Positives and Negatives of GW Bush with a person with a "Tree Good, Bush Bad" sticker.

Evolution with someone with one of those legged fish getting eaten by the Jesus fish.

Gay rights with the aforementioned "Adam and Steve" guy.

 

The other thing you need to do is define "sophisticated." You can have extremely complicated arguments with them over said issue. But I would wager, than in general, your Anti-Bush guy isn't going to go "Yeah, I disagree with his foreign policy, but the Vision for Space Exploration is good." Your anti-evolution person isn't going to go - "Obviously evolution is a fact, but I have yet to be convinced that self-reproduction could evolve from the primordial ooze." And your "Adam & Steve" bigot isn't going to say "My religious views don't really have any bearing on civil legislation - all I'm saying is that gay people make me uncomfortable."

 

I guess I'm using "sophisticated" in the sense of "nuanced understanding" and not "really complicated."

 

It's not their ability to have this discussion that's in question, it's their willingness. And no, I'm not saying this is a universal truth - all I'm saying is that I wouldn't start a discussion about one of those things with one of those people and expect to have an edifying conversation.

 

In the "Adam and Steve" case - people with bigoted bumper stickers tend to be bigots.

 

TFS

[Zythryn]

Not precisely...

It's not their ability to have this discussion that's in question, it's their willingness.

 

Excellently explained, thank you for correcting me. I understand your posts much better now.

 

I agree that it is more likely for someone with an inflamitory bumper sticker to be unwilling to hold an in-depth give and take debate over the subject. However that typically doesn't stop me;) (I think I just like beating my head against a wall).

 

I appreciate you taking the time for clarifying your stance to me. I was very confused and you cleared that up nicely.

[coberst]

This is a response I received that you might find interesting.

 

I'm a current college student, and any paper that cites Wikipedia as a source automatically gets a failing grade. It's not an appropriate scholarly source, since the articles are anonymous and therefore the author's credentials cannot be verified. For this reason, it doesn't qualify as an authoritative source. It's also edit-able by anyone, as was mentioned uptopic.

 

I had one prof that said he didn't even want us using it as an idea generator. That said, I often refer to it, but only to get general information. I have other sources. Questia.com is an awesome library. It's not free, but a hundred bucks a year for the kind of research I can do there is well worth it.

[coberst]

Cedars

 

I have been posting on forums for three years and I have two hobby horses; self-learning and critical thinking. It is almost universally true that everyone considers them self to be a self-learner and a critical thinker. As a result of that delusion they are unable to focus their attention on anything I say. Their sound-bite mentality destroys their ability to learn.

[Cedars]

This is a response I received that you might find interesting.

 

I'm a current college student, and any paper that cites Wikipedia as a source automatically gets a failing grade. It's not an appropriate scholarly source, since the articles are anonymous and therefore the author's credentials cannot be verified. For this reason, it doesn't qualify as an authoritative source. It's also edit-able by anyone, as was mentioned uptopic.

 

I had one prof that said he didn't even want us using it as an idea generator. That said, I often refer to it, but only to get general information. I have other sources. Questia.com is an awesome library. It's not free, but a hundred bucks a year for the kind of research I can do there is well worth it.

 

So your saying out of the tons of forums you currently post to, one person responded this way and therefore wikipedia isnt worth a click?

 

Google search "coberst" and "wikipedia" results: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22coberst%22+and+%22wikipedia%22&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N

 

Didnt take me long to find a response to you about wikipedia being quite good and I quote "Our E&M prof. mentioned that things like electronics articles can be surprisingly good for what it is that they're trying to convey."

 

But I dont have time to search thru all the posts and find out what the true balance of the responses was to your queries. What I did find was many responses that were like mine. Good for general info, but if in doubt check for other sources. I wont remind you of things others have said regarding the listing of citations in articles (in reference to above).

 

One thing I did not find was the original source you quote above, but as I said I did not read all of the hits.

 

Good bye Chuck.

[coberst]

Cedars

 

I would say that 90% of the responses were basically, "I like Wiki." My complaint is not with Wiki but is with our sound-bite culture. I am inclined to regard Wiki as complimentary to that culture.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I am inclined to regard Wiki as complimentary to that culture.

 

Why? Because of the Kuhn thing you don't care for?

 

TFS

[coberst]

The Faithful

 

When I turn to Britannica I get the feeling that I am turning to great knowledge and wisdom but when I turn to Wiki I get the feeling that I am turning to something on the run that has the appearance of substance but is very problomatic. But, like I said, this may be unfair because I seldom use Wiki.

[Zythryn]

Coberst, I think the common message has been something like "I find Wiki useful" not "I like Wiki".

As I stated earlier, there is little difference between the accuracy of Encyclopedia Britanica and Wiki. The biggest difference seems to be how well the text in Wiki is structured (not as professional in some cases).

 

I can see how that fact could lead many to believe the information is less accurate even though that is not the case.

[pgrmdave]

The fact is, no encyclopedia should ever be used for serious research. Not even the venerable Britannica - they are very general overviews of information, and are prone to small mistakes (to reiterate what has been said before - wikipedia and Britannica have very similar rates of problems.) As for feeding into a 'sound bite society', there has yet to be any actual discussion as to how Wikipedia, by providing information, can do that. It is not, to the best of my knowledge, biased, nor is it broadly lacking in information. A 'sound bite society' would be fed by biased news and/or news that was, in general, lacking a lot of information.