On 14/01/2012 05:34 PM, Warp wrote:

>    I'd say that's rather nitpicky. The colloquial expression "can be
> trusted" implies the continuation "to do the right thing" (for their
> customers, in this particular case).

All those people running MS software are *not* MS customers. They are an 
MS product. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 14/01/2012 05:09 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 1/12/2012 5:52, Invisible wrote:
>> Of course, if instead of inserting something obviously bogus, the
>> person had
>> made several small factual edits which look superficially plausible, you
>
> It would take about an hour. You don't think academics do experiments
> like this and publish their results.

Er, why would academics waste time on something as pointless as Wikipedia?



...oh, wait. I just remembered the experimental study to determine 
whether or not a duck's quack echoes. Damn.

>> This is why Wikipedia will /never/ be inerrant. ;-)
>
> Of course not. But it appears to have errors at about the same rate as
> normal published paper encyclopedia.

Really? So paper encyclopedias are written by people with no domain 
knowledge simply plucking facts out of thin air too?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 15/01/2012 10:46 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 13/01/2012 05:34 PM, Warp wrote:
>
>> The problem with quotes in the modern world is that it's trivial to write
>> them in google and get the source in a few seconds. There's no challenge
>> anymore.
>
> Interestingly, typing "quod enim mavult homo verum esse id poteous
> credit" yields few if any hits, despite being a very well-known quote.
>
Not well known to me. What does it mean?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 1/15/2012 2:51, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> All those people running MS software are *not* MS customers. They are an MS
> product. ;-)

Not precisely. If you bought Windows, you're a customer. If you run Windows, 
you're a potential future customer (Office, upgrades, etc). Unlike broadcast 
television, where there was no rational expectation of actual money coming 
from the viewer in return for the TV shows before they started selling TV 
shows on DVD.

It's just that the number of Windows licenses you personally buy is dwarfed 
by the number that Gateway buys.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/15/2012 2:53, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Er, why would academics waste time on something as pointless as Wikipedia?

Why would academics waste time on determining the accuracy of 
non-peer-reviewed published distribution channels? Really?  You didn't spend 
enough time in academia, I think. :-)

> Really? So paper encyclopedias are written by people with no domain
> knowledge simply plucking facts out of thin air too?

No, but neither are wikipedia articles, it seems.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:54:38 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 15/01/2012 10:46 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> On 13/01/2012 05:34 PM, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with quotes in the modern world is that it's trivial to
>>> write them in google and get the source in a few seconds. There's no
>>> challenge anymore.
>>
>> Interestingly, typing "quod enim mavult homo verum esse id poteous
>> credit" yields few if any hits, despite being a very well-known quote.
>>
> Not well known to me. What does it mean?

Essentially boils down, I think, to "A man prefers what he believes to be 
true".

Google Translate can now handle latin, but "poteous" it doesn't seem to 
know.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Not well known to me. What does it mean?
>
> Essentially boils down, I think, to "A man prefers what he believes to be
> true".

Quite. I believe it was Sir Francis Bacon who wrote that.

(The translation I saw was "for what a man wishes to be true, that he 
more readily believes".)

> Google Translate can now handle latin, but "poteous" it doesn't seem to
> know.

I probably spelt it wrong. (Thinking about it, it might be "potious", 
I'm not sure. Same root as "potestus", I think.)

Post a reply to this message

On 15/01/2012 07:09 PM, Darren New wrote:

> It's just that the number of Windows licenses you personally buy is
> dwarfed by the number that Gateway buys.

I thought it was more that Windows is a product that forces people to 
buy expensive new hardware, which is why the hardware vendors agree to 
supply it. (In other words, Windows is a product for helping hardware 
vendors sell more stuff.)

Post a reply to this message

On 15/01/2012 07:11 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 1/15/2012 2:53, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Er, why would academics waste time on something as pointless as
>> Wikipedia?
>
> Why would academics waste time on determining the accuracy of
> non-peer-reviewed published distribution channels? Really? You didn't
> spend enough time in academia, I think. :-)

I wouldn't know about "academia" - I went to a crap university, 
remember? Recall also that research is the thing I do worst.

That said, I would be surprised if any "serious" research had been done 
in this direction. I know some people somehow manage to get funded to do 
all kinds of ridiculous studies, and somebody might have managed to do a 
joke study on Wikipedia, but I doubt much serious work has been done on 
this.

>> Really? So paper encyclopedias are written by people with no domain
>> knowledge simply plucking facts out of thin air too?
>
> No, but neither are wikipedia articles, it seems.

Are you seriously suggesting that anything on Wikipedia is written by 
somebody who has a clue?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 15/01/2012 07:11 PM, Darren New wrote:
> > On 1/15/2012 2:53, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> >> Really? So paper encyclopedias are written by people with no domain
> >> knowledge simply plucking facts out of thin air too?
> >
> > No, but neither are wikipedia articles, it seems.
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that anything on Wikipedia is written by
> somebody who has a clue?

Suppose you're someone who has a clue.  Then you go to a website where someone
who doesn't has written lots of BS.  What do you do, given you know such a
popular website is a channel for distribution of knowledge?  a) You cross your
fingers and hope for the best of mankind; b) you troll their pages with even
more BS to bring the whole site down as a fraud; c) you actually go and edit the
article with more accurate knowledge and citations.

Post a reply to this message