February 8, 2007: Thousands of daddy-long-leggers

[WabUfvot5]

I suddenly want a flame thrower.

[Undertoad]

We (in my old project), often joked with one another regarding Wikipedia, and were constantly amazed at how often people take what they find on the web as gospel (no disrespect intended).

Anyway, I have already conceded defeat given that I cannot locate the research I wanted.

As a Wikipedia advocate I take this combination of statements to be highly ironic.

If you find something inaccurate in Wikipedia, don't laugh at it, correct it. It's thought to be as accurate as Brittanica, but continuously self-updating and free. I laugh (and cry) at the scientific journals that don't publish on the web. What are they afraid of? Wikipedia is what happens when money is less important than getting information out.

[xoxoxoBruce]

C'mon Dave, I believe ya. I'm just trying to help you out here, by linking pertinent articles.

Mythbusters is not a reference. Even a dummy like me can see holes in their methodology and sometimes downright illogical conclusions. That said, you have to admit the show has gotten better since the added the "research scientists" with the hip huggers and tight tops.

If I Google something I know little or nothing about, it's hard to decide which of the seventy eleven links might be productive. Wiki is a great place to start with the "big picture". It gives me the general schools of thought and major points of contention. If I want to dig deeper, the external links gives me a place to start digging.

I saw a chart one time that showed the entire history of Wiki's most "active" subjects. How often, how, and by whom, they were changed. Quite often the item would repeatedly change in minutes for particularly contentious subjects. Unless you have solid evidence to the contrary, for a given subject, collective wisdom is the way to go.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

C'mon Dave, I believe ya. I'm just trying to help you out here, by linking pertinent articles.

I know Bruce, and I appreciate your efforts. I meant no disrespect to you.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

As a Wikipedia advocate I take this combination of statements to be highly ironic.

Research institutions often post news releases about their research projects, on their web sites. That was what I was looking for, not the research paper itself. Very few of these sites offer archives, so if they have a busy publicity/communications department, the news releases can drop out of sight pretty quickly.

I have only ever quoted a link to Wikipedia if the subject content looked OK to me, and as I have already said, I know that most web users accept Wikipedia as being an impeccable source. I too wish that more of our work was published on the web, but there is very strong resistance to doing this amongst the scientific community. I tried to do something about it, but I was virtually a lone voice.

[LabRat]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

Research institutions often post news releases about their research projects, on their web sites.

So, they are telling what they found out, and you are saying OK, that must be true then. Right?

Just because a "Research Institution" says something , doesn't mean it's necessarily right.

All scientific articles must go thru a peer review process before being accepted for publication, online and eventually print in a scientific journal. The papers are usually sent to 3 researchers in the same field, who are asked to review the paper. (If they do not wish to review it, it is sent out again until at least 3 people review it.) If all 3 say sure, looks good to us, it generally gets published. If there are apparent problems withthe method of experiment, or conclusions drawn, the author(s) are either asked to make corrections and resubmit for further review, or the paper is totally denied for that publication in that journal. The Authors can then send the paper out to another (less picky/lower quality) journal, and try to get it published again, with or without revisions.

I am a researcher, so I know this process.

Scientific journal editors are relying on the collective knowledge of experts to put out reliable information.

Essentially this is what Wiki is doing also. The info is out there, but "we" are the reviewers. It's really no more or less reliable than the set of people reviewing the initial submissions.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by LabRat

So, they are telling what they found out, and you are saying OK, that must be true then. Right?

No.

Just because a "Research Institution" says something , doesn't mean it's necessarily right.

True. I never said otherwise.

All scientific articles must go thru a peer review process before being accepted for publication, online and eventually print in a scientific journal. The papers are usually sent to 3 researchers in the same field, who are asked to review the paper. (If they do not wish to review it, it is sent out again until at least 3 people review it.) If all 3 say sure, looks good to us, it generally gets published. If there are apparent problems withthe method of experiment, or conclusions drawn, the author(s) are either asked to make corrections and resubmit for further review, or the paper is totally denied for that publication in that journal. The Authors can then send the paper out to another (less picky/lower quality) journal, and try to get it published again, with or without revisions.

Don't try to teach your grandpa how to suck eggs, girlie. :p

I am a researcher, so I know this process.

I was undertaking research when you were just a gleam in your parents' eyes.

Essentially this is what Wiki is doing also. The info is out there, but "we" are the reviewers. It's really no more or less reliable than the set of people reviewing the initial submissions.

Rubbish. First Wiki is not a recognised, nor supported, academic resource, and secondly, any given entry can be modified by anyone, and even the "editors" often cannot agree - a fact admitted on NPR by the head of Wiki last Friday. He said that he knows of entries that have been modified several times in only a few minutes, and that he has no control over it. He seemed to be quite proud of it. Strange.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Here is an excellent article that explains how Wikipedia really works. It appears from the comments below the article, there's some politics, some money, some ego, some disention....but it's working.