In a message dated 10/26/2005 4:01:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com writes:

Colleges are dispensers of job training, warehouses that sell knowledge.

You go there to get certified. They used to be places where you went to get an Education.

There's more to being an educated person than stuffing your head full of data and info that which is useful in your career. Go to DeVry if you want vo-tech training.

They even took Logic out of the curriculum. You don't learn obvious, classically tried and true things like the syllogism. What's that, it sounds dirty ("jism").

* All men are mortal. * Socrates is a man. * Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

If A is true, than B is true. But B is not true! Then A could not POSSIBLY be true.

And that's the simple stuff. Don't forget the rhetorical fallacies like ad hominem, guilt by association, non sequitor, circular argument, and dozens of others which are STILL BEING USED today.

The worst part is that Wikipedians use these fallacies on talk pages.

Ed Poor

I agree.

It is a sad thing to say that people just don't -- and too often even can't -- think/reason anymore, but it's true. Critical thinking skills simply are not taught/honed anymore -- certainly not in this nation's public education system. I daresay the same is very likely true in our institutions of higher learning.

(I must say, though, I detested logic class. Boring as hell.)

These days, people are as intelligent (potentially, at least) as they ever were; they're just dull-witted and undisciplined.

I've come to realize that discussing points of contention with some Wikipedians is as pointless as would be ramming their heads against a brick wall. I used to think some of them were being argumentative/purposely obtuse just for the hell of it

And while many of them are, I now know, of course, that a lot of them, unfortunately, just don't get it.

When I encounter that sort of thing, if I'm not in the mood to continue to engage them, I just throw up my hands, leave it be, and then go back later and fix things. (Like "Melanin.")

The more popular/widely known Wikipedia becomes, the more frequently sloppily written contributions will appear. I don't have a lot of respect for what this nation's educational institutions and world schlock culture are producing these days. Wikipedia will continue to attract mediocre, limited minds with lots of rigid opinions backed by precious little real knowledge, understanding or perspective. Syntax, grammar and spelling -- even, to some extent, article structure -- can be fixed relatively easily with some dedicated copy editing. But a populist idea like Wikipedia in the hands of anyone with access to a computer and an ISP is doomed from the start as a reliable source of authoritative information.

That's all there is to it.

But the idea IS a luminous one -- isn't it? :p

Wikipedia runs the gamut from stellar to squalid. I love it. I hate it.

Right now, I can live with that. And when I decide I can't/won't any longer, then I'll simply vote with my web browser and leave.

'S as simple as that.

K