|
1-6 of 6 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
Wikipedia
|
Reply
|
|
by toddg on August 31, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wikipedia, as some of you know is great place to learn just about anything you can think of. From the Roman Empire to urban sexual slang (yes, dirty Sanchez is in there as well). Upon looking up several of the more common venomous snakes, I seem to have stumbled across, what appear to be, several factual inaccuracies. Examples are: EDB’s contain enough venom to kill 400 human beings, a bite from a puff adder can kill a man within minuets, Egyptian cobras are 10 times more toxic than Indian cobras, Black mamba antivenin is rare and expensive, Russell’s viper venom is more toxic than Black mamba or Common krait venom, and so on. Now I know that this may seem like semantics to some and my preoccupation to this subject may be approaching nerdom (Yea, I know. Dude! Get a life!) however, ANYONE can edit these pages and I was wondering… If some of the more learned of you have nothing better to do… just a thought.
toddg
|
| |
|
RE: Wikipedia
|
Reply
|
|
by LarryDFishel on August 31, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm not sure I would call myself "learned", but one the things on my neverending list of things I will never get around to is contribute to some of the snake pages on Wikipedia (they seem to be generally pretty good).
I did make a few comments about the cottonmouth page a while back and someone else made the corrections. (..like their habbit of hanging out on branches over the water...we all know what those are...)
|
| |
|
RE: Wikipedia
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on August 31, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Todd, this is why I am like Rodney Dangerfield concerning Wikipedia, I have no respect for it, and will not use it.
As soon as I see someone say ``Wikipedia defigns....`` I just write them off as being lazy and ill-informed.
In my opinion, anyone using a `` open resource`` is just asking for wrong information. The idea is good, but it will just not work in the real world, as anyone can change it, and no one can freeze the correct information, except for certain topics they have frozen, like Albert Einstein, and Mark Twain, and certain religious topics.
The reason is just like your said, any moron can Edit it! That is why it is often wrong. Anyone can add wrong information, and there is no one checking the accuracy of it!
Hopefully, it will eventually die out, and be replaced by legitimite sites that provide factual, or at least not constantly questionable information.
I think it is a waste of time trying to correct a source like that, as someone else can come along and un-do your corrections.
There are plenty of old time dictionarys, like Funk & Waginall, or Webster, or Brittanica, or World Book, who are a lot more constint in their definitions.
Just my rant and rave opinion about Wikipedia, LOL !
Best Regards JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: Wikipedia
|
Reply
|
|
by toddg on August 31, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You’re absolutely right John! However, the same argument can be made against many books and magazine articles. How many times have you read something that you KNOW to be factually inaccurate from some supposed expert? Yet, there’s not a damn thing you can say about it ’cause “it’s in print, it must be true”! The difference is on Wikipedia; you have an opportunity to make a correction in the information and, depending on the author, often times you can effect a change. I also don’t think it’s fair to denounce the entire website as, you no doubt are aware, there are several different contributing authors. Many of who, work diligently to get their information correct and, if provided a source, will quickly make a change. Now I’m not suggesting a verbal assault upon these authors telling them how full of crap they are; it’s just that knowledge may be the most precious resource on this planet, and to not share it, especially with an information source like Wikipedia that's so frequently accessed, seems like such a waste.
Blissfully ignorant,
toddg
|
| |
|
RE: Wikipedia
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on August 31, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Todd, when I see stuff in print that is not right, I often send a letter or eMail to the Editors. Who knows if it does any good or not, but there is some satisfaction in trying.
What really bugs me is how often folks like National Geographic and Animal Planet and Discovery make mistakes on all the TV and Cable shows.
Like I said, I like the idea of Wikipedia, I just do not think it will work in the long term, as there is just too much opportunity for wrong info to make it there. But who knows, perhaps it will become a great resource someday.I will give them the benifit of the doubt, but will not use them for a resource.
Best Regards JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: Wikipedia
|
Reply
|
|
by toddg on September 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John, I sympathize, empathize, and any other kind of ‘thize with your frustrations while viewing animal shows on the telly. You know I once saw a show that attempted to put forth the proposition that the Boa constrictor can weigh as much as a quarter ton! I think the difference however, between Wikipedia vs. television and written material is that it is possible to effect change without a great deal of effort. On television, you can send letters until your blue in pen but no TV. editor is about to reshoot, reedit, or reanything else just for the purpose of actually getting his facts straight. You can contact authors, book and magazine publishers all you like but the most you can hope for is a correction in later editions… that is, IF THERE IS a later edition. The original copies will still be out there spreading intellectual dishonesty like Marlboro reds and Jack Daniels at a NASCAR race. I’ve also noticed on Wiki that, if an author plays a little fast and loose with the facts, that said author usually takes so much abuse on the discussions page that they are forced to either make the appropriate corrections or are sent to stand shamed, in the nearest cyber-corner , whimpering with there lap tops and praying for their pathetic little lives to end. Perhaps you are right and Wikipedia will go by the wayside like… (sorry I’ve run out of metaphors. Feel free to insert you favorite one here). Yet, since the afore over-mentioned web site is perhaps the most widely accessed information source in the world and viewed by soooo many people around the world (Actually, I really don't know if it's true but it sounds good!) and since one of the goals of this web site IS education, and since corrections (if properly referenced) are so easy to effect, it seems a shame not to at least try. After all, I'm not suggesting that members of this web site rush out and write the ultimate Bothrops insularue page but a few minor corrections here and there surly aren't too much to hope for.
Incidentally, I noticed that at least one of the wiki snake pages referenced this web page as a source of information. That, at least, certainly cannot be a bad thing. O.K. I have to get off my soap box now; I’m starting to get a nose bleed.
toddg
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
