I never saw any comments that I can remember, here or on WPO or elsewhere.
https://gizmodo.com/the-dumbest-wikiped ... 1840542046
Said article is a regular vandalism target, Trump aside. Jengod was the primary editor up to 2007, and from 2008 to 2013 it was heavily controlled by Wcp07, who appears to be Australian....it's a typical fuck-with-this-political-related-article situation. Unlike most such wars, this one got a long Gizmodo post.
No one noticed this squabble before?
-
ericbarbour
- Sucks Admin
- Posts: 4626
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
- Location: The ass-tral plane
- Has thanked: 1158 times
- Been thanked: 1848 times
-
Abd
- Sucks Warrior
- Posts: 749
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
- Has thanked: 72 times
- Been thanked: 48 times
Re: No one noticed this squabble before?
It seems that the article was started as an original research project. The lead still begins with an unencyclopedic and unsourced declaration of usefulness.
In the presence of a controversy, list articles can be incredibly messy. Really, if there is going to be a list article, each reliably-sourced fact should be presented separately. If policy were followed, comparisons would not be made unless they can be reliably sourced as comparisons. Instead, we have nonsense like arguing over the use of photos to assess height.
As fully-grown people age, they tend to lose height. This is a great example of how Wikipedia never actually learns and develops collective intelligence. It's all new, deja vu all over again. From medline:
Wikiversity was much more suited for research projects, but Wikipedia generally dissed Wikiversity, not understanding the difference between education and research, and encyclopedic articles. There is an article on Height discrimination.
If there is to be an article, there would be a list of possible heights, taken from reliable sources. And, by the way, a person's physician is not a reliable source, who ever imagined that this wasn't primary source? If a list is to be sorted, it would be according to, probably, the lowest reported value. For Wikipedia to conclude what the "correct" value is, is to abandon the principles on which the project was built. Not that this is a terribly unusual occurrence.
More stupidity in the article: the image, "Presidents have grown taller over time as shown using linear trend estimation." That was a piece of work done by a Wikipedian. A factual statement is made, which is obvious original research. And what would be interesting would be a comparison of that "linear trend estimation" with average height over the same period of time.
In the presence of a controversy, list articles can be incredibly messy. Really, if there is going to be a list article, each reliably-sourced fact should be presented separately. If policy were followed, comparisons would not be made unless they can be reliably sourced as comparisons. Instead, we have nonsense like arguing over the use of photos to assess height.
As fully-grown people age, they tend to lose height. This is a great example of how Wikipedia never actually learns and develops collective intelligence. It's all new, deja vu all over again. From medline:
In order to place a president in the list, in order, one must decide on the order! Which is then, generally original research or synthesis. A proper article might, in fact, be written on the topic of height vs. election success, based on reliable sources. But this article pretends to present fact (though it does note some controversy).People typically lose almost one-half inch (about 1 centimeter) every 10 years after age 40. Height loss is even more rapid after age 70. You may lose a total of 1 to 3 inches (2.5 to 7.5 centimeters) in height as you age.
Wikiversity was much more suited for research projects, but Wikipedia generally dissed Wikiversity, not understanding the difference between education and research, and encyclopedic articles. There is an article on Height discrimination.
If there is to be an article, there would be a list of possible heights, taken from reliable sources. And, by the way, a person's physician is not a reliable source, who ever imagined that this wasn't primary source? If a list is to be sorted, it would be according to, probably, the lowest reported value. For Wikipedia to conclude what the "correct" value is, is to abandon the principles on which the project was built. Not that this is a terribly unusual occurrence.
More stupidity in the article: the image, "Presidents have grown taller over time as shown using linear trend estimation." That was a piece of work done by a Wikipedian. A factual statement is made, which is obvious original research. And what would be interesting would be a comparison of that "linear trend estimation" with average height over the same period of time.