Coffee’s here!!: The Wikipedians – “a bunch of egocentric introverts”?

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 8, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Perish the thought. People who say such things had better roll their own party sandwiches, right?

Yet Asher Moses for The Age (July 8, 2009) advises,

a study by Israeli psychology researchers found “the prosocial behaviour apparent in Wikipedia is primarily connected to egocentric motives … which are not associated with high levels of agreeableness”.

The study, published in the journal CyberPsychology and Behaviour, gave personality tests to 69 active members of the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and 70 non-Wikipedians, finding the former “feel more comfortable expressing themselves on the net than they do offline”.

The researchers’ findings that Wikipedians were introverted, disagreeable and closed to new ideas is at odds with the notion that Wikipedia was built around community and knowledge sharing.

Feather, please. I can’t be expected to do my pro-gravity trick without the familiar prop.

The rest of the article goes on to provide details and to vindicate Australian Wikipedians as less messed in the head than others, and we must hope it is so.

Of course, anyone familiar with the intelligent design controversy will be well aware of the waste of time associated with trying to get reasonably neutral information posted.

To me, the scandal is not that the trolls are running the ‘pedia, but that profs actually send their students there for information.

Comments

I wrote (#32) that "Conservapedia’s two-sentence article ("Plastic") is mostly wrong... ...and nicholas.steno (#41) complained: "mostly wrong? i don’t see what is wrong with the factual content of the conservapedia article. Thanks for that cogent observation. "Durable" is not a characteristic of all plastics; some plastics are not "formed from oil"; while plastics may be "nearly ubiquitous in American consumer products," the audience for Wikipedia is purportedly planet-wide, not solely American. Plastics were not "discovered in the mid-1900s" but much earlier. Most of the "facts" in the two sentence "article" are wrong - or useless. nicholas continued: "you seem to equate quantity with quality. trivial useless detail... I’m sure anyone looking at a wiki page isn’t looking for that sort of information. they just need the bare fact" That's the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Dictionaries can properly have a one or two sentence description. Encyclopedias are supposed to be...encyclopedic.PaulBurnett_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

dbthomas, Furthermore, design inferences in the past necessitated that the designer is a god or God. With more updated evidence we can see that such an assumption is not necessitated by the empirical data - while making the same inference is not at all invalid. Necessity and implication are different things altogether. Design implies God, and I think it is the most clear implication of design, but it doesn't necessitate God. This is why I think there are a lot of agnostics and a few deists who accept ID. Antony Flew is an example of this. We now have to accept that design inferences are metaphysically based. But metaphysical notions can have natural evidences. The danger is in ruling them out categorically - because in so doing, we forget that we are still making metaphysical assumptions. As a theist, I have to allow others to come to their own conclusions, if I'm to be faithful to being a theist. I don't believe God wants anybody to believe in a lie. The type of theism I accept allows that God is every bit a part of natural reality - although he is not a part of material nature - He is transcendent. As such, it is my belief that the empirical evidence will show and has shown that design is the better paradigm. But I have to allow the evidence to speak for itself, and not to force it to conform to a particular text, or interpretation of such a text. So if somebody wants to infer that space aliens designed our biological nature via transpermia, fine; but I don't believe that is the most parsimonious interpretation of the data due to the fact that it doesn't sufficiently resolve the infinite regress problem. I come to that conclusion not based on the empirical evidence, but based on my own metaphysical understanding. You have probably noticed that I have interjected my own metaphysical understanding into my views on ID. Fine. We all do it. Darwinists interject "a god would not have designed the world as it is," purely out of metaphysical assumptions. That is pretty much what this debate is about. So when Darwinists come here to discuss and notice that we spend a lot of time talking about God and religion, they have to understand that we are doing what the evidence leads us to - not what we want to force on the evidence. Wikipedia completely misunderstands this dynamic, and I think their article is intellectually shallow.CannuckianYankee_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

dbthomas, "Here’s another thing: almost all of those historical versions, which you yourself brought up as antecedents to ID that should have been mentioned, explicitly were arguments for the existence of a deity of some sort. They weren’t just about saying “Look, that’s gotta be designed.” So, if I were an IDer, insisting that it’s not about proving God, I have to say I would not want to emphasize the connection with historical examples of the teleological argument like those you cited. I find it sort of odd that you want the Wikipedia article to do just that." I see now where the connection is. Let me clarify my thinking on this. The evidence for ID allows one to make a design inference. I don't think ID supporters need to be embarrassed by the history of how humans have made design inferences. ID is not completely separated from that history, just as it is not completely separated from creationism. However, as I pointed out in earlier posts, and as you have agreed, ID is not the same as a teleological argument. The teleological arguments in my view are valid, but not empirical. I believe ID is impirical. So I think any thorough examination of ID would logically look at historical design inferences, to see how the thinking evolved into a more rigorous exploration of the evidence.CannuckianYankee_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT}

CY: OK, you kinda mistook my intent there. You were wondering why the ID article didn't mention Plato or Aquinas and so forth. My point was that ID isn't identical to the teleological argument in general. It certainly makes use of the basic idea, but ID also includes other arguments about the boundaries science, is characterized by a particular jargon, such as IC or CSI, which typically relies on more current knowledge, etc. By the same token, I wouldn't say that Paley's Natural Theology was the precisely the same thing either, because it had it's own features, unique to its time and place of composition, that distinguished it from earlier versions of the AfD deployed by, say, Plato or Aristotle. Here's another thing: almost all of those historical versions, which you yourself brought up as antecedents to ID that should have been mentioned, explicitly were arguments for the existence of a deity of some sort. They weren't just about saying "Look, that's gotta be designed." So, if I were an IDer, insisting that it's not about proving God, I have to say I would not want to emphasize the connection with historical examples of the teleological argument like those you cited. I find it sort of odd that you want the Wikipedia article to do just that.dbthomas_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

dbthomas, BTW, ID supporters do not deny that much of ID thinking comes from creationist ideas - as you have taken time to point out. This is not surprising, since many IDists are either creationists in one sense of the word, or were creationists in the same sense or another. It's important to distinguish one very important difference - ID does not appeal to biblical text as a test or guide for the veracity of it's argument. ID looks only to the evidence from nature. ID supporters for the most part don't spend their time denegrating the ideas of creationists.CannuckianYankee_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

dbthomas, "That’s because ID isn’t the same thing as the teleological argument aka argument from design:" Sorry so late - I try to respond to everyone who responds to me, but this one sort of slipped by me. I'm confused. Are you making an argument that ID IS a teleological argument for the existence of God? If so, I disagree. ID is only concerned whether or not there is design, while a teleological argument takes apparent design as an argument for God's existence. Paley's "Watchmaker" argument: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/paley.shtml ...is a teleological argument, but it is not quite ID. The evidence for design that ID detects supports teleological arguments, but is not itself one. And this is part of what the Wikipedia article on ID gets wrong.CannuckianYankee_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT}

sorry about that i am quite unused to these html thingies paragraphs 1 was quoted, 2 3 4 my responsenicholas.steno_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

#32
Wikipedia’s “Plastic” article takes over twenty screens to display (on my monitor). Conservapedia’s two-sentence article is mostly wrong, and far from “keen.” But, yeah, there’s definitely room to grow, so you are correct that Conservapedia is “growing” - but it’s got a long way to go to catch up to Wikipedia. mostly wrong? i don't see what is wrong with the factual content of the conservapedia article. you seem to equate quantity with quality. trivial useless detail about the composition of various esoteric forms of plastic doesn't help. I'm sure anyone looking at a wiki page isn't looking for that sort of information. they just need the bare facts. #35 CY I like that idea. I'm not much help I am afraid but I'd love to read it! There needs to be some effort to correct the obvious liberal bias at wikipedia. dbthomas what are you trying to prove, anyway? it is distracting from the topic, your demonising of design thinkers as 'creationists', while we are discussing the dismissal of design by the demagoguery of denialists.
nicholas.steno_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

Also from that issue, a double-shot of "common design". Just search and replace a few bits of vocabulary mentally as you read (and excise the Scripture):
The Form And Structure Of Living Things Frank L. Marsh, Ph.D. Creationists and evolutionists have vastly different concepts of comparative anatomy. The evolutionist holds that the more closely basic types of living things resemble each other physically in body line or chemistry the closer is their blood relationship. In contrast, the creationist holds that because the Creator spoke all the basic types into existence from the dust of the earth on Days Three, Five, and Six of the literal Creation week, there is no genetic relationship between them. Any similarity in anatomy, for instance, is due to one Creator with a master plan. Regarding man, the truth of the literal Genesis account of his origin is attested by the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:4-6. That the Creator ceased at the end of Creation week to form new basic types of organisms is stated in Genesis 2:2 and verified in nature. The discontinuity among both living and fossil forms constitutes real evidence of the creation of basic kinds. According to the natural record, from the day of their creation, all Genesis kinds have continued to bring forth only after their kinds. Variation has never been known to accomplish more than the production of a new variety of a basic type already in existence. The Concept Of Homology Russell Artist, Ph.D. The concept of homology, in the historical sense, was defined in The Origin of Species by Darwin as "recognition of fundamental plan in animals and plants is due to descent with modification." Inheritance of successive slight modifications from a common ancestor was very likely a reaction to the extreme view of the immutability of species held in Darwin's times. This paper seeks to show that it is neither hopeless nor unscientific to attribute a common plan or a basic pattern of a Creator to the similarities shown by the forelimbs of vertebrates. A review of recent and widely adopted high school textbooks in biology shows that homology in the Darwinian sense is still being offered as "proof" of evolution. Recognition of the rapid inroad of evolutionary teaching into our educational system to the complete suppression of creationist viewpoints calls upon scientist and non-scientist alike to lead in a return of the data of the natural sciences with creation guidelines.
Well, that was interesting. Others can post further examples if they wish. Here's the page for abstracts by issue: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts.htmdbthomas_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

Irreducible complexity by any other name... From 1969 (bolding mine):
Does The Science Of Genetics And Molecular Biology Really Give Evidence For Evolution? Walter E. Lammerts, Ph.D. By reference to beans, roses and corn, variation is shown to be limited and not unlimited as Darwin thought. Mutations are generally harmful. Even assuming a 1% advantage, which no mutation reported has actually shown, rate of accumulation of mutations in a species is so slow that it would take about 1,000,000 years for a species population to become uniform for one mutation. This makes them ineffective even in microevolution as means of accumulating the constant features distinguishing species. The giraffe is used to illustrate this fact. Also biological species show remarkable variation in chromosome number and form. Translocations and inversions occur rarely and spontaneously in species populations. Most translocations in the fruit fly, Drosophila, are either invariable when homozygous or cause a reduction in fertility in one or both the sexes. In plants, homozygous translocations are usually normal in fertility and vigor. However, none of them are more vigorous than the normal or standard type. Accordingly there is simply no way for them to become established as homozygotes in all the individuals of the population. Experimentally produced polyploids are variable in chromosome number due to quadrivalent formation and so their offspring have a variable in chromosome number. Also they are reduced in fertility, so could not become established in nature, since natural selection would operate against them. Some idea of the complexity of the DNA-RNA system is given. This remarkable interlocking system could not be the result of chance variation. Also reference to work with bacteriophage and tobacco mosaic virus shows that these organisms will not stand the slightest change in the nucleotide bases or their order in the very long and complex DNA molecule. Only the genius of a remarkably intelligent Being we worship as God could have designed such an efficient yet intricate system.
Of course, it's not really ID because he, erm, IDed the Designer.dbthomas_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

Here's a good one June 1967:
Is DNA Only A Material Cause? Harold Armstrong, Ph.D. By means of philosophical considerations and, secondly, through specific examination of experimental facts, the author investigates the notion that DNA is "the secret of life." An objection is raised that use of the word "code" in references to DNA involves nothing more than a metaphor. This and other objections are studied regarding DNA as a material, efficient, and formal cause. Objection is raised against the idea that memory is the encoding of experiences in DNA. Examination of experimental data brings out denial of the normal expectation that complicated organisms would have larger amounts of DNA than less complex forms. Facts indicate that DNA is influenced by environment as well as heredity. Comparisons are presented between results in vitro and in vivo experiments involving DNA. The author concludes from is [sic] theoretical arguments and from experimental evidence that DNA is not the whole cause of life and heredity. DNA is a material cause, but the author asserts there still must be a formal cause.
Sounds quite familiar. As I recall, Joseph has been using a variant of this argument on a current thread here, updated with some modern genetic details. I think he may have even proposed an experiment looking to confirm the existence of this "formal cause".dbthomas_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

Here's another interesting abstract from that June '94 issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal:
Anatomical Evidence For Creation: Design In The Human Body David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D. The human body is designed for precise, efficient functioning. In our human realm, creative inventors and engineers design and develop simple and complex machines that perform work more efficiently. A review of examples of pulley systems, wheels and axles, friction-reducing sacs within joints and compression/tension abilities of bones in the human body is presented. The functional superiority of the human brain over lower animals is cited. Since designs infer a designer, an unbiased observer would have great difficulty denying the rationality of inferring that these highly designed mechanisms in the human body had to be designed by an outside, suprahuman intelligent agent (Logos), the Creator.
dbthomas_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

PB, it wasn't Dick Bliss, but rather Richard D. Lumsden in an article called "Not So Blind A Watchmaker". abstract reads:
Structural and operational principles underlying the organization of the vertebrate retina and bacterial flagellar apparatus are reviewed in the context of William Paley’s classic intelligent designer vs. Richard Dawkins’ contemporary "blind watchmaker" interpretations of biological origins and diversity. The significance of inverted retinal microanatomy and retinocytophysiology is diagnosed. In the process, Dawkins’ riposte to Paley is refuted. The second example is more contemporary. In terms of biophysical complexity, the bacterial rotor-flagellum is without precedent in the living world. To the micromechanicians of industrial research and development operations, it has become an inspirational, albeit formidable challenge to the best efforts of current technology, but one ripe with potential for profitable application. To evolutionists, the system presents an enigma; to creationists, it offers clear and compelling evidence of purposeful intelligent design.
Interesting, to say the least. Especially that final sentence.dbthomas_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

"Wikipedia’s “Plastic” article takes over twenty screens to display (on my monitor). Conservapedia’s two-sentence article is mostly wrong, and far from “keen.” But, yeah, there’s definitely room to grow, so you are correct that Conservapedia is “growing” - but it’s got a long way to go to catch up to Wikipedia." Agreed. BTW, I took a look at both Wiki's articla on Baraminology and Conservapedias. I found the Conservapedia one more ballanced. It presented what Baraminology is, allowed a section on disagreements, and was rather well ballanced. Not so with Wiki. They present a very sharp almost comical negation and that is all. It would be interesting if we took both sides of the controversy on this forum to collectively write an article presenting ID to have published on Wiki. I bet all of us collectively could do a better job than what is currently there. Such an article would need to allow the pro-side to present what ID is first, then there could be a section discussing the cons, and how ID supporters respond.CannuckianYankee_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

PaulBurnett, Dr. Dick Bliss’ article in the June 1994 issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, from which Behe’s “theory” of irreducible complexity was plagiarized, provided lots more “inspiration” to Behe. This is discussed in Matthew Chapman’s book “40 Days and 40 Nights.” Matthew Chapman would appear to have a new twist on an old argument - actually accusing Behe of plagiarism. I hope he can present substantial evidence for this. As it stands, a common scheme among Darwinists is to show ID's ties to prior arguments from creationists so as to show that ID is in-fact, simply a new form of creationism with the same old arguments. For a refutation of that argument, go here: http://telicthoughts.com/to-be-or-not-to-be-a-creationist/CannuckianYankee_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee (#21) wrote: "Polanyi’s irreducible mechanistic structures inspired Dr. Michael Behe’s "irreducible complexity." Dr. Dick Bliss' article in the June 1994 issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, from which Behe's "theory" of irreducible complexity was plagiarized, provided lots more "inspiration" to Behe. This is discussed in Matthew Chapman's book "40 Days and 40 Nights."PaulBurnett_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

nicholas.steno (#20) wrote: "...the liberal stranglehold on wikipedia will be broken by the keen and growing competition from conservapedia." I sure hope that was a joke, because it's really funny. Here, for instance, is the entire article on "Plastic" from Conservapedia: "Plastic is a durable, (sometimes) recyclable material formed from oil that is nearly ubiquitous in American consumer products. Plastics were discovered in the mid-1900s, and entered into wide use almost as quickly." - http://www.conservapedia.com/Plastic Wikipedia's "Plastic" article takes over twenty screens to display (on my monitor). Conservapedia's two-sentence article is mostly wrong, and far from "keen." But, yeah, there's definitely room to grow, so you are correct that Conservapedia is "growing" - but it's got a long way to go to catch up to Wikipedia.PaulBurnett_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

CY: Re: the ID article That's because ID isn't the same thing as the teleological argument aka argument from design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argumentdbthomas_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

"This is exactly why my college professors have told me, repeatedly, “For the love of God, don’t use Wikipedia as a source” when writing research papers." When I was in school - long before the internet, I was told to never use encyclopedias as sources when writing research papers. Encyclopedias are actually excellent places to start some research if you know nothing about a subject, because it gives you some sources, but they can also be very outdated sources. One good thing about Wikipedia is that a lot of their sources are more up to date than the average hard-copy encyclopedia.CannuckianYankee_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

This is exactly why my college professors have told me, repeatedly, "For the love of God, don't use Wikipedia as a source" when writing research papers.Barb_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

It’s methodological flaws are not mere “limitations”
OUT, wayward apostrophe.Diffaxial_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

VJ @ 19:
It would be unwise to read too much into the psychological study of Wikipedia contributors cited in the report in The Age, given the study’s modest conclusions and methodological limitations.
You are far too generous, VJ. The actual study merits no conclusions whatsoever, modest or otherwise. It's methodological flaws are not mere "limitations" - rather they are completely fatal WRT inferences about these populations. The study is worthless. For The Age to continue, "The researchers’ findings that Wikipedians were introverted, disagreeable and closed to new ideas is at odds with the notion that Wikipedia was built around community and knowledge sharing" is unwarranted. The study warrants no such conclusion. Moses either didn't read it or is incapable of evaluating research of this kind. What remains are some opinions about Wikipedia.Diffaxial_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

Sparc and Sparc300c, It seems I'm getting both of you mixed up now. lol.CannuckianYankee_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

Sparc, "To my best knowledge I am in no way related to spark300c." Yes, I gathered that. My fault. I'm so used to abbreviating people's names here. Sorry for the mixup. :)CannuckianYankee_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT}

VJtorley, We find in the astrology article: "Astrology has played an important role in the shaping of culture, early astronomy, the Vedas,[1] the Bible,[2] and various disciplines throughout history." Nowhere near the beginning of the Intelligent Design article do we find "Design has played an important role in the shaping of culture..." yet design inferences have been made since Plato, and were instrumental in the beginnings of Darwinism itself. The article would have been more accurate if like the Astrology article, it begins by tracing the history of Design inferences from Plato, through Aquinas, to Paley, Thaxton and Polanyi, Behe, Dembski, etc. - but it does none of that. When it mentions any of these supporters of ID, it is only in relation to the negative impression of them from detractors. And here's another issue - once someone were to write a more in-depth and informative article on ID, it would most assuredly be deleted or revised so that only one side gets to define it.CannuckianYankee_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

VJtroley, "I am not questioning the contributors’ intelligence or breadth of knowledge. What worries me is their apparent lack of openness to radically new ideas which threaten to overturn the scientific status quo - as shown by their inability to come to grips with, or even agree on a satisfactory definition of, intelligent design. In that sense, Wikipedia might be described as the real Conservapedia on the Web." Indeed. I tested this dynamic by looking up another much older controversial subject, astrology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology The article was rather benign, and quite informative. It seems that ID is taken to the slaughter compared to an obviously more esoteric subject such as astrology. One would think by comparing the two that astrology actually has more respectability than the notion of design.CannuckianYankee_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

To my best knowledge I am in no way related to spark300c.sparc_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

Me:"Wrong again - ID started before that." Sparc: "Indeed, about 6K BC, on a Monday morning." Not quite, Johnathan Witt remarks that the beginnings of the Design arguments in biology can be traced to the 1950s and further into the 1970s with the discovery of the double helix in the DNA - and then more explicitly with Michael Polanyi in the 1960s; “machines are irreducible to physics and chemistry” and... “mechanistic structures of living beings appear to be likewise irreducible." http://www.evolutionnews.org/The%20Origins%20of%20Intelligent%20Design.pdf Witt states: "Polanyi’s work also influenced the seminal 1984 book The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Charles Thaxton (Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, Iowa State University), Walter Bradley (Ph.D., Materials Science, University of Texas, Austin), and Roger Olsen (Ph.D., Geochemistry, Colorado School of Mines). Thaxton and his co-authors argued that matter and energy can accomplish only so much by themselves, and that some things can only “be accomplished through what Michael Polanyi has called ‘a profoundly informative intervention.’" Polanyi's irreducible mechanistic structures inspired Dr. Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity."CannuckianYankee_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

Some seem to have missed the fact that the hedder is Coffee’s Here! Those are not intended as serious moments, whether or not your views are well ground.
indeed. the humorless cads protesting the methods or conclusions of this paper are not adding anything to your insightful analysis, Ms O'Leary. I would be interested to know how many of these wikipedia editors are darwinists and how many find it acceptable to squelch opposing viewpoints from other editors as we often see from the darwinist side. My view is that the truth cannot be stopped, just like ID is a growing movement also the liberal stranglehold on wikipedia will be broken by the keen and growing competition from conservapedia.nicholas.steno_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

I use Wikipedia often myself, for the very simple reason that it contains a mountain of useful information, available at the touch of a button. Obviously, Conservapedia doesn't hold a candle to Wikipedia, although it does have a few thought-provoking articles. It would be unwise to read too much into the psychological study of Wikipedia contributors cited in the report in The Age, given the study's modest conclusions and methodological limitations. Far more disturbing, however, is the following extract from the report in The Age:
The researchers' findings that Wikipedians were introverted, disagreeable and closed to new ideas is at odds with the notion that Wikipedia was built around community and knowledge sharing. This was partly confirmed by Australian Wikipedia admin Andrew, who doesn't want his surname published but goes by the online handle Orderinchaos. He said many discussions between moderators about the site's policies resulted in "intractably opposed contributors, many with vested interests, slugging it out to the death".... But Daniel Bryant, one of the most senior Wikipedia administrators in Australia, noted the study only surveyed Israeli users and said the Australian Wikipedia community had a different culture from other national groups. (Emphases mine - VJT.)
I am not questioning the contributors' intelligence or breadth of knowledge. What worries me is their apparent lack of openness to radically new ideas which threaten to overturn the scientific status quo - as shown by their inability to come to grips with, or even agree on a satisfactory definition of, intelligent design. In that sense, Wikipedia might be described as the real Conservapedia on the Web. One does not need to suppose that any conspiracy is going on here. The real cause of Wikipedia's resistance to radical ideas might simply be that its board of moderators has grown too big, and that institutional inertia has set in.vjtorley_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply