Crap or questionable articles

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1757
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Post by ericbarbour » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:26 am

Your list of many-red-links for the month:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... California
#BbbGate

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1757
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:41 am

HAVE ANOTHER!! A dead-typical long, long list of red links for obscure plants. They still have this kind of thing for genus lists of bacteria, insects, protozoa, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draba

Which reminds me: there is an ugly political battle over a deeply obscure flower only found in a tiny section of the Rhyolite Ridge in Esmeralda County, Nevada. And there is nothing about this on Wikipedia.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... ent-100595
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/spe ... kwheat.pdf
#BbbGate

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Mod
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Post by Abd » Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:55 pm

This brings me to what was once my favorite topic, how Wikiversity could complement Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, for notable topics. Wikiversity was for educational materials and "learning by doing," and what does one do when studying in a real university? Well, write papers! Participate in seminars and discuss topics!. We did it to some degree on WV, created learning resources, where compiling the information was learning (Wikipedians thought of Wikiversity as "articles," and then were upset if the articles weren't "neutral," but a university library is full of non-neutral materials. The overall structure is neutral, and on WV this would be represented by top-level pages (Wikiversity allows subpages in mainspace!) being rigorously neutral with full or very high consensus -- which is actually easy to do if divergent points of view can be expressed on subpages.

It worked, so, naturally and eventually, the Wikipedians killed it.

In any case, no problem at all creating WV placeholder pages for every species, and sorting and categorizing that information, and collecting sources, no matter how obscure. They would not have to be "reliable source," but site neutrality requires that sources not be misrepresented. They are what they are. If it's an amateur botanist, the problem is? Only if it is presented with color of authority would that be a problem. And students would learn.

I learned very much of what I know about cold fusion by collecting sources -- including highly critical ones. In fact, especially critical sources, ones that are substantial are not easy to find! (and they are all old, that's another finding one only comes to when reading a lot in a field.) But this also worked with many other topics, even ones where there was even heavier controversy.

With this approach, people with strong differences could still collaborate to create complete resources.

Yeah, they killed it. Wikipedians do not want genuine consensus to form. Too often, they are terrified of it.

Post Reply