http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004665.html
Also, the availability of responsible discussion in alternative media offers at least a small contrary force to the surge of misinformation from traditional sources. As a result, those who consult Google or Wikipedia -- with an open-minded and skeptical attitude, of course -- are likely to be better informed than those who rely on sources like the BBC. Perhaps this is the best outcome that we will get, but it's not the best that we could hope for.
--- "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004665.html
from traditional sources. As a result, those who consult Google or Wikipedia -- with an open-minded and skeptical attitude, of course -- are likely to be better informed than those who rely on sources like the BBC.
That seems a bit of an extreme extrapolation based on a single case involving obvious and well-known psychic BS in telepathy and BBC's partial hiding and down-playing thereof. Not the kind of exhibition of statistical sampling and cause-effect logic that one might hope the better editors of Wikipedia would display. See my follow-up post on "Wikipedia's Effect on American Knowledge" from an independent source.
Somehow, some argue through divine communication, others claim through telepathy, that the Wikipedia's article on the "power" of [[prayer]] is as well informed.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
Cheney Shill schreef:
--- "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004665.html
from traditional sources. As a result, those who consult Google or Wikipedia -- with an open-minded and skeptical attitude, of course -- are likely to be better informed than those who rely on sources like the BBC.
That seems a bit of an extreme extrapolation based on a single case involving obvious and well-known psychic BS in telepathy and BBC's partial hiding and down-playing thereof. Not the kind of exhibition of statistical sampling and cause-effect logic that one might hope the better editors of Wikipedia would display.
It is extrapolation, but not that extreme. Language Log (which is a great read, by the way) has published a number of bad BBC science stories over the years; see http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003507.html .
Although it's not a scientific study, LL's comments are based on more than this single incident.
Eugene