JediTricks wrote:He knows how they work, we've danced that dance before, he has a blanket belief that information culled there cannot be trustworthy and therefore he disregards it all wholesale even when they are unequivocal facts.
That is not how it works and you know it Jedi. I have said
numerous times Wiki's can be a useful source of information, but that
does not make it a credible source to be citing information from regardless of if they are unequivocal facts or not. That's not my "blanket belief" at all, that's how the world of academia views it.
I know what you were explaining, that's why I was asking O6 what the point of him continuing to bother attempting to bridge such a significant gulf was. You call your viewpoint "academic" while summarily dismissing information culled from moderated aggregation sources, you aggressively voice your opinion as if the rest of us are somehow ignorant to the workings and cannot make discerning choices for ourselves. I was not interested in addressing your point whatsoever because I was asking O6 a question about his motivation for continuing to have a conversation that could only end in a brick wall.
Clearly you don't know what I was saying since you seem to think I was trying to promote myself as superior in some way. That's not what I said, nor was that the intent of it. If you tried to use Wikipedia as a source for an academic paper, you'd probably fail, not because the information wasn't accurate, but because Wiki's are not a reliable source to be citing information from. It's not unheard of for people to have that same view of citing Wiki for everything. I've seen it plenty of times, inducing from other members on this very board. That's why I mentioned that in that same post I feel like sometimes there is a double standard. Sometimes people here wont accept a wiki citation, other times they will. Yet I feel like I'm the one being punished for sticking to a particular view.
If you don't like what's being suggesting, don't promote yourself as superior due to a background in education and academics to win an argument on the internet.
That's the thing, I DID NOT promote myself as superior in ANY WAY. I was careful with how I worded that post to avoid EXACTLY that. Instead YOU chose to ignore EVERYTHING I said by only focusing on my saying that I have a background in education. By doing so, you are turning this into a personal attack on me when you're the one that has the wrong idea.
You summarily dismiss conversation and information outright based on the source, you have a closed mind to others despite their willingness to follow information threads and comparisons, the implication being because you see them as being not as academic as yourself. If you don't like the suggestion, don't suggest it, don't chalk it up to a background in education, we're not being graded here, this isn't a classroom and it's surely not academic to close one's mind entirely to anything. The only reason academia would shut that down is because it is not "showing the learning", it is a jump in the progression of education - but information is information, the path of information can
start ANYWHERE, and as we're not in the classroom it's not our job to show our work or justify ourselves to anybody else - these aren't term papers. You may not have intended your statement to come off as holier than thou, but that's the underlying implication, O6 believes in the anthropological power of group-moderated information presentation with proper sourcing can be a reasonable start to finding information, and you don't because you're "academic" about it due to a "background in education", that's a significant gulf despite O6's belief being supported by other academics with backgrounds in education:
http://gnovisjournal.org/2009/05/13/aca ... wikipedia/
When have I ever dismissed a conversation just because of the source? As I recall, the last time you cited a wiki article (in the Star Trek topic) and I passed over it as a reliable source, you found another more reliable source and the conversation continued. And again, you're completely ignoring everything I've ever said about using Wiki articles here. You accuse me of being closed minded when you blatantly misinterpret what I said and then refuse to acknowledge what I actually said? I know these aren't term papers we're writing here, but as I said, sometimes it does feel like there is a double standard when it comes to people citing wiki articles, so I just chose to stick to one and leave it at that. There was no underling implication, I was just trying to explain why I decided to stick with that view rather than embrace a double standard. You only looked at one statement and decided to take it COMPLETELY the wrong way while completely ignoring everything else I'd said in that post. That's all on you. And sure, I realize the use of Wiki articles as a source is an ongoing thing, but have you actually read that article you linked to? It's not saying that academics should use Wikipedia as a source, it's a study to explore academics’ views on Wikipedia. And it concludes by basically saying they can't generalize results and that more research is needed. And it mentions participants had concerns over things like the credentials of authors and the fact content is unsustainable given anything could change at anytime, among other things.
I was just explaining why I personally stick with the more academic approach to using wiki as a source of information. And you completely bypassed the point I made that there does seem to be a bit of a double standard when it comes to using a wiki around here, so I've found I'd rather not deal with that and just stick to the academic approach. What I said is nothing like what you're suggesting here and I don't appreciate how you're trying to distort it like that.