67
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Wednesday November 13, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchTalk:Criticism of crowdsourcing (view source)
Revision as of 00:41, 12 October 2008
, 00:41, 12 October 2008→Expectation of quality: Moulton's view on the quality of evidence-based findings suitable for publication.
::Also, I have, as well as my friends, submitted to IRS Complaint forms regarding its 501 (3)(c) status, which is in bold face violation of said statute. Now, it may take me 20 years, but I will see Wikipeida dead as it's provides the very tools for it's own destruction, the fools that administer wikipeida are to stupid and arrogant to know where the bolt from the blue will come from and they will not be immune...see [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008081palin1.html some who thought they were above the law in cyberspace...the hammer of US:law][[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)
::Also, I have, as well as my friends, submitted to IRS Complaint forms regarding its 501 (3)(c) status, which is in bold face violation of said statute. Now, it may take me 20 years, but I will see Wikipeida dead as it's provides the very tools for it's own destruction, the fools that administer wikipeida are to stupid and arrogant to know where the bolt from the blue will come from and they will not be immune...see [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008081palin1.html some who thought they were above the law in cyberspace...the hammer of US:law][[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)
===expectation of quality===
===Expectation of quality===
Greg, you wrote: "Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia."
Greg, you wrote: "Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia."
:I wholeheartedly support this. This has not been entirely absent at the Review, but the format doesn't support it, and some of the senior members of the site seem uninterested in it. Part of this would mean vetting allegations before they're publicized, and excising material which falls short of our standards, which would leave many contributors to the Review with little to say. Of course, posters might upgrade their standards - you never know if you don't ask. Wikipedia Review lacks this expectation of quality.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 16:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT) (Timothy Usher)
:I wholeheartedly support this. This has not been entirely absent at the Review, but the format doesn't support it, and some of the senior members of the site seem uninterested in it. Part of this would mean vetting allegations before they're publicized, and excising material which falls short of our standards, which would leave many contributors to the Review with little to say. Of course, posters might upgrade their standards - you never know if you don't ask. Wikipedia Review lacks this expectation of quality.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 16:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT) (Timothy Usher)
::Kato has disclosed to me two of the principles that he appreciated learning from me over the past year on W-R. One was the concept of a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states theory of mind]" (accurately recognizing and identifying such mental states as beliefs, intentions, desires, motivations, and pretensions of knowledge of another person). Another is the scientific concept of evidence-based reasoning. In journalism (as in mainstream science) we adopt evidence-based reasoning to avoid publishing ungrounded flights of fancies (e.g. hypothesized conspiracy theories) as if they were established facts grounded in scientifically reviewed evidence, analysis, and reasoning. Furthermore, given any alternate hypothesis that purports to overthrow the null hypothesis, we conscientiously employ the protocols of the Scientific Method to ''falsify'' all new hypotheses. It is upon consistent ''failure to falsify'' a novel hypothesis that it eventually emerges as a useful model that consistently makes reliable predictions. Anything less than that results in a ''constructed reality'' that mimics a cyberspace soap opera rather than the real world that we all jointly inhabit. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:41, 11 October 2008 (PDT)
== Blog ==
== Blog ==
