Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:70s (Score 1) 729

In such a situation you have high deflation. The way you get out of that trap is a by having a common use currency which is not as deflationary... the silver banking system in the USA when we had the gold standard being an example.

Comment Re: What? (Score 1) 325

Your game doesn't matter.

X is a citation behind an expensive paywall, P.
Either
a) P is well regarded and mainstream and thus large numbers of people have access
b) P is niche

In case (b) a counter point from a well regarded site would overwhelm the facts from P. If a consensus appeared to emerge contradicting P the fact would be removed even without the citation ever being refuted.

Comment Re:What? (Score 1) 325

I think that you get the policy that an academic consensus is going to be taken over a popular position. As far as your sources being deleted and ... that's Wikipedia's obnoxious culture not the ban on original research. No question after 2006 the culture for Wikipedia became more obnoxious. However what GP was talking about above was something that even if Wikipedia were functioning properly would still be a violation of policy.

  I'd say the situation you are describing that:

a) There exists a clear academic consensus X
b) There exists a clear popular consensus Y
c) X and Y disagree

Mostly though Wikipedia wants to reflect the truth in popular sources not the consensus of specialist literature. Both views probably need to be reflected. That approach is also less likely to get reverted or rejected in time. Trying to maintain a position that the academic view is right even while Y is still maintained in the popular literate is not going to fly. Ultimately the question is going to be "why is the academic position being rejected by popular writers?" As far as the changes in time. Wikipedia represents the best opinion of editors at the time of their edits. Articles flow back and forth depending on who shows up. A specialist can help influence an article in a positive direction and those changes might stick, but they might not. Ultimately the best way for the specialist to affect Wikipedia would be t write a piece of popular literature on the topic and thus destroy the popular consensus around Y.

Comment Re:What? (Score 1) 325

A document that claims to be summary of the opinion of authorities is not committing a fallacy when it makes an appeal to said authorities. The appeal to authority fallacy requires a dismissal of evidence. Wikipedia doesn't evaluate the evidence at all.

Comment Re:What? (Score 1) 325

It isn't the coffee table book. It is best sources. But mostly they went the other way on that. They want non-mainstream out not in. I agree it can be frustrating and I think they often go too far but their position is they don't want to get involved in arguments. Have the arguments elsewhere with other experts not on wikipedia.

Comment Re:Decline doesn't mean death. (Score 1) 325

I don't think I could have made corrections but I can see problems.

For example your first article:
San Diego Men's Chorus the history of how and why it was founded as well as by whom is short. It is missing detail. There is still obvious work to be done in filling this in. There are language problems and missing detail example: " SDMC performed some of the finest choral literature from a variety of genres. ". Obvious thing is to fine what they performed and what genres.

On your second article you have Jeffrey Scholten who had the world record as a redlink. The notes are unclear as to their meaning (what does "ADV" mean)...

Slashdot Top Deals

It is contrary to reasoning to say that there is a vacuum or space in which there is absolutely nothing. -- Descartes

Working...