In contrast to destructive forces that cynically trade in misinformation and outright lies, the world's biggest online encyclopedia is a champion of creating accurate information for all.
"Building something, anything of worth tends to be extremely hard. It requires sacrifice. And focus. And perseverance. And specialized skills. And so much more."
This is one of my core beliefs. Perhaps for some people, insight does come easily, I don't know, but I that's only because there was a period of time when they worked very hard, and I think you can only improve if you sweat. And it's that extra two percent that distinguishes the best work and gives it credibility. What is so sad about this virus that Trump represents is that, not only is there a complete lack of effort behind it, but there is at times an active effort to lie, to pursue untruths. It's hard enough to be intelligent even if one is trying to be.
Basically, Wikipedia is an idealistic endeavor, and there are not many of them. Somehow, this skepticism and distrust of it runs deep, which is ironic. I feel like people have never been able to get past that "anyone can contribute to it" and that it isn't created by all PhDs and "experts." For years I never went into the construction of it, but just knew from my experiences that the entries were well-done and trustworthy. Yet, when I did some substitute teaching of middle school in 2022, I still could only mumbled under my breath to the kids that Wikipedia was a good source. I felt like they wouldn't take a teacher seriously who said such a thing.
The New York Times Magazine had a recent article about the future of Wikipedia in an AI world. Everyone close to the subject seemed to take for granted that AI would be a move toward speed but not accuracy. If anyone doesn't have a New York Times account and can't access the article, I'd be happy to make it one of my gift shares of the month for you, so let me know.
Thank you, David....so much here that you wrote that is in synch with my perspective and experience (your substitute teaching included). If you can make this a gift share, that'd be fantastic.
I always contribute to Wikipedia. I use it a lot. But I am not naive. It is filled with misinformation. I recall once in particular checking on the Weatherman NY Townhouse bomb making factory and subsequent explosion. This happened in 1970. The article claimed that what they were making were antipersonnel fragmentation bombs and referenced a NY Times article (which quoted the NY City bomb squad). Well I pulled the article from the NY Times archive and it just was not true. The authors or author of the Wiki article totally misrepresented the reference that they cited. Fortunately, they did cite a reference which could in fact be checked. In my previous life as an academic physician, and peer reviewer of articles submitted to academic journals, this problem (misrepresenting a cited reference) was not uncommon. Even so, Wikipedia is still a very important contribution to our knowledge base. But be careful ... read critically. Always.
Thankful for your diligence, Bruce, and that of so many others. Agree fully...it's not a perfect platform, but what I appreciate is that the site has the apparatus to fix errors, whether accidental or otherwise. Snopes is another site that comes to mind -- its central mission is to confirm or refute information.
"Building something, anything of worth tends to be extremely hard. It requires sacrifice. And focus. And perseverance. And specialized skills. And so much more."
This is one of my core beliefs. Perhaps for some people, insight does come easily, I don't know, but I that's only because there was a period of time when they worked very hard, and I think you can only improve if you sweat. And it's that extra two percent that distinguishes the best work and gives it credibility. What is so sad about this virus that Trump represents is that, not only is there a complete lack of effort behind it, but there is at times an active effort to lie, to pursue untruths. It's hard enough to be intelligent even if one is trying to be.
Basically, Wikipedia is an idealistic endeavor, and there are not many of them. Somehow, this skepticism and distrust of it runs deep, which is ironic. I feel like people have never been able to get past that "anyone can contribute to it" and that it isn't created by all PhDs and "experts." For years I never went into the construction of it, but just knew from my experiences that the entries were well-done and trustworthy. Yet, when I did some substitute teaching of middle school in 2022, I still could only mumbled under my breath to the kids that Wikipedia was a good source. I felt like they wouldn't take a teacher seriously who said such a thing.
The New York Times Magazine had a recent article about the future of Wikipedia in an AI world. Everyone close to the subject seemed to take for granted that AI would be a move toward speed but not accuracy. If anyone doesn't have a New York Times account and can't access the article, I'd be happy to make it one of my gift shares of the month for you, so let me know.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/magazine/wikipedia-ai-chatgpt.html
Thank you, David....so much here that you wrote that is in synch with my perspective and experience (your substitute teaching included). If you can make this a gift share, that'd be fantastic.
I always contribute to Wikipedia. I use it a lot. But I am not naive. It is filled with misinformation. I recall once in particular checking on the Weatherman NY Townhouse bomb making factory and subsequent explosion. This happened in 1970. The article claimed that what they were making were antipersonnel fragmentation bombs and referenced a NY Times article (which quoted the NY City bomb squad). Well I pulled the article from the NY Times archive and it just was not true. The authors or author of the Wiki article totally misrepresented the reference that they cited. Fortunately, they did cite a reference which could in fact be checked. In my previous life as an academic physician, and peer reviewer of articles submitted to academic journals, this problem (misrepresenting a cited reference) was not uncommon. Even so, Wikipedia is still a very important contribution to our knowledge base. But be careful ... read critically. Always.
Thankful for your diligence, Bruce, and that of so many others. Agree fully...it's not a perfect platform, but what I appreciate is that the site has the apparatus to fix errors, whether accidental or otherwise. Snopes is another site that comes to mind -- its central mission is to confirm or refute information.