Is social media killing Wikipedia?

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 24, 2017

Culture, Darwinism, Media, Naturalism, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Creative Commons

From Hossain Derakhshan at Wired:

Wikipedia has never been as wealthy or well-organized. American liberals, worried that Trump’s rise threatened the country’s foundational Enlightenment ideals, kicked in a significant flow of funds that has stabilized the nonprofit’s balance sheet.

That happy news masks a more concerning problem—a flattening growth rate in the number of contributors to the website. It is another troubling sign of a general trend around the world: The very idea of knowledge itself is in danger.

…

Now the challenge is to save Wikipedia and its promise of a free and open collection of all human knowledge amid the conquest of new and old television—how to collect and preserve knowledge when nobody cares to know. Television has even infected Wikipedia itself—today many of the most popular entries tend to revolve around television series or their cast. More.

<em>Teapot</em> Cobalt Blue Well, like we’ve said before, when a king cobra mixes it up with a giant sidewinder, it’s hard to know which side to back…

We think naturally of Wikipedia “disappearing” paleontologist Gunter Bechly and diminishing engineering prof Walter Bradley. Social media can, of course, also zap whoever the employees anticipate that Mark Zuckerberg and cronies don’t like. But they don’t pretend to be reference sources.

Wikipedia’s lofty goals were conceived in apparent ignorance of the usual ways human beings behave. One could be getting the opinions of experts, however motivated by the politics of a discipline, as with all encyclopaedias throughout history. But, in a new development, one could just be getting the opinions of trolls —information landfill. Some of it may be salvageable but who’s going to go to the trouble of digging in deep to find out?

Also: At “Wikipedians diminish another high achiever sympathetic to ID,” a commenter writes “Larry Moran isn’t in Wikipedia” (either). News replies,

ET at 3: The fact that Larry Moran isn’t in Wikipedia is not a good defence for that source. He has been quite active in recent evolution discussions. He was in Forbes in 2015 on that very topic, just for example.

If one wants to know what is happening, Wikipedia is not the place to look. But if a kid wants to sloven through homework in a failing school system and that’s okay with the folks at home, it’s ideal.

Note: Hossein Derakhshan (@h0d3r) is an Iranian-Canadian media analyst who was imprisoned in Iran from 2008 to 2014.

See also: Wikipedians diminish another high achiever sympathetic to ID. Yes, there is sometimes useful information in Wikipedia. But one can say that of the supermarket tabloids as well. It’s a question of how likely that is, relative to stuff we can’t evaluate or should avoid, averaged against the value of one’s time sorting it out.

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Comments

KF, thank you for the blessedly brief response, but you forgot to mention any of those reasonable tests that materialism fails. Perhaps your difficulties are caused by your habitual violation of God's oldest and most important rule: Don't learn the difference between right and wrong! To see what I'm getting at, read Genesis 3:5 where the serpent tells Eve the true purpose of the Forbidden Tree: "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” In Genesis 3:22,23 God confirms the serpent: "Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken." As you can clearly see, God doesn't want us to know the difference between good and evil and He kicked Adam and Eve and all of their descendants (us!) out of the Garden of Eden for learning it. It's no wonder we can't get back into the Garden with misguided individuals like yourself trying to teach us to be good when God has made it VERY clear that he wants us ignorant. Honestly, it's no wonder He's constantly strafing your island with hurricanes and volcanos when you run around teaching your children about is-ought, it from bit, do-good morality! God wants you and every other believer in the world to renounce Original Sin once and for all and just take off your clothes and be amoral.MatSpirit_{October 27, 2017
October
10
Oct
27
27
2017
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

MS, apparently you do not realise that ethical theism is a well-founded, well-grounded worldview adhered to by millions including people of high education, intellect and character. If you imagine that such a worldview can fairly be characterised as Lewontin/Sagan did, as a "demon haunted world" is not a reflection on the state on the merits, it is a reflection on you. Indeed, it points to ignorance and hostility beyond any responsible warrant; a characteristic pattern of the so-called new atheists and fellow travellers. KF PS: I suggest you may want to start here on, to begin to rethink: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_bld_wvukairosfocus_{October 26, 2017
October
10
Oct
26
26
2017
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

TA, I have provided a commentary on a longstanding published article (I have neither taken out of context nor distorted meanings etc etc), which can be justified step by step. Indeed, it is worse, for Lewontin has by adverting to "demons" {echoing Sagan} actually implied a lot about ethical theism and ethical theists which is outrageously false and out of order. This is not a smear, it is a critique. Above, RVB8 simply implied the assumption that the label Creationist was instantly to remove beyond the pale. Big difference, kindly learn it before trying the turnabout accusation fallacy again. KFkairosfocus_{October 26, 2017
October
10
Oct
26
26
2017
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

KF: "Second, it is an utter disgrace to do drive-by smears of those not present to defend themselves, regardless of how you may view them." A case in point: R.C. Lewontin.timothya_{October 26, 2017
October
10
Oct
26
26
2017
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

KF "the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . ." Then you must know of a reasonable test it doesn't fail? Try to keep it under a page in length.MatSpirit_{October 26, 2017
October
10
Oct
26
26
2017
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

MS, piling on is a form of doubling down. There is a substantial issue which News has put on the table. Let me refocus by clipping from 2 above:
In the case of Wikipedia, it is a clear case of radical relativism at work on the domain of knowledge and reveals that the attitude might and manipulation make ‘truth,’ ‘right,’ ‘rights,’ ‘knowledge,’ etc is an open invitation to domineering, amoral, nihilist factions who then entrench themselves and ruthlessly oppress those they target; through agit prop tactics and the underlying cultural marxist agenda to wreck our civilisation. It is a capital public manifestation of the failure and bankruptcy of evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers.
It is high time we woke up to what is happening to our civilisation, and to why. And, if one makes a crooked yardstick one's standard of straightness and accuracy, then one will reject what is genuinely straight and accurate. Worse, if one then refuses to heed the message of a plumb-line as to what is out of order, one locks in folly. And, sadly, Wikipedia has long since proved its lack of soundness as a system. On topics that are not ideologically loaded there may be much useful material, but on too many topics, it is severely wanting, biased, even a manifestation of agit prop. And, this is more and more typical of institutions across our culture, media, education, political, legal and more. Including, perhaps most of all, the implications of evolutionary materialistic scientism being entrenched in halls of power in science. If you doubt me on this, at least listen to Lewontin:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . ] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
I am frankly a lot less than sure if we still have time to stop the lemming march, but silence in the face of ruinous folly is not good enough, regardless of the likelihood of actually turning back the march. KFkairosfocus_{October 26, 2017
October
10
Oct
26
26
2017
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

KF: "First, the invidious comparisons..." What? Comparing an AIG science piece to a News post is invidious? Ok, if you say so, but who's getting maligned here?MatSpirit_{October 25, 2017
October
10
Oct
25
25
2017
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

RVB8, your habit of using invidious comparisons to Creationists not present to defend themselves is doubly offensive. First, the invidious comparisons, which send a not so subtle message of pushing ID into a boat in which even the same Creationists recognise it does not belong -- yet another case of your speaking in insistent defiance of regard for truth you know or should know (and for correction). Second, it is an utter disgrace to do drive-by smears of those not present to defend themselves, regardless of how you may view them. I suggest that it is high time that you stop such behaviour, especially as it is part of the toxic trifecta of fallacies: red herrings led away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems, to set them alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere for discussion. In the case of Wikipedia, it is a clear case of radical relativism at work on the domain of knowledge and reveals that the attitude might and manipulation make 'truth,' 'right,' 'rights,' 'knowledge,' etc is an open invitation to domineering, amoral, nihilist factions who then entrench themselves and ruthlessly oppress those they target; through agit prop tactics and the underlying cultural marxist agenda to wreck our civilisation. It is a capital public manifestation of the failure and bankruptcy of evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers. KFkairosfocus_{October 24, 2017
October
10
Oct
24
24
2017
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

News, let a little reality in please, this post is slightly less well researched than an AIG science piece. 1) English articles to date; 5.5 million, and growing. 2) Spanish 1.4 million, and growing. 3) German 2.1 million, " ". 4) French 2.0 million, " ". 5) Portugues 1.0 million, " ". 6) Chinese 1.0 million, " ". 7) Japanese 1.0 million, " ". 8) Russian 1.5 million, " ". 9) Italian 1.4 million, " ". 10) Polish 1.3 million, " ". News, the title of this post is; "Is social media killing Wikipedia?" No, it's not, can't you see that?rvb8_{October 24, 2017
October
10
Oct
24
24
2017
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply