faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
|
wikipedia may be inaccurate, KDE is not.
by nae on Saturday 05/Apr/2008, @01:11
|
Wikipedia is information done by men, and thus is naturally biased.
This leads to inaccuracy , eg: speaking about polithics or about sports.
For anything else wikipedia can be 99% trusted but for those arguments
biasing is too high (just think at two wikipedia sites in two opposing
countries, which give 2 different versions of the same identical history,
or in two countries with different religion, or in one capitalist and in one
communist country....).
I don't think it would be a gret move for KDE to be associated with something
that could be interpreted as lying, malicious and inappropriate,
so I'm against any deeper involvments, actual plugins and apps are more than
enough. |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: wikipedia may be inaccurate, KDE is not.
by Torsten Rahn on Saturday 05/Apr/2008, @03:03
|
> just think at two wikipedia sites in two opposing
> countries, which give 2 different versions of the same identical history,
> or in two countries with different religion, or in one capitalist and in one
> communist country....
Seriously, get a life dude.
The fact that wikipedia DOES actually provide different articles in two countries IS a good sign. After all only in totalarian and fascistic system "the true one opinion" does exist. In reality there is no "truely objective" way to look at history. Hence having two different "interpretations" of history gives the reader the opportunity to compare both articles and draw his own conclusions.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: wikipedia may be inaccurate, KDE is not.
by Martin Fitzpatrick on Saturday 05/Apr/2008, @04:13
|
Agreed, I'm actually impressed a lot of the time on Wikipedia articles where they attempt to give equal balance to two sides of history of a contentious issue. The talk pages are always interesting - almost as useful a reference as the pages themselves.
Nobody is every going to agree on everything. If we can get the arguments out there in public, and present both sides fairly and equally, that's a good thing.
It's not perfect, but it's probably the best we've had.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: wikipedia may be inaccurate, KDE is not.
by nae on Sunday 06/Apr/2008, @03:22
|
Grow up kid. Tien'An'Men and the actual Tibetan question, Holocaust and Holomodor. Reality IS one, interpretation may be multiple but reality is just
a single one. Wikipedia is too often offering just one point of view, and
misplacing interpretations as reality, depending on who is in charge in that
particular country/ wikipedia branch.
So it's untrustable for more than 90% of the politician questions, while being
totally reliable only when talking about sciences and math (typo and other
errors excluded, obviously).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: wikipedia may be inaccurate, KDE is not.
by Torsten Rahn on Sunday 06/Apr/2008, @04:40
|
> may be multiple but reality is just a single one.
What is "reality" without a (human or whatever) being to observe it? Nothing. "Reality" is only a fuzzy and idealized thing that becomes more "verifiable" and only gets a meaning in human terms with (more) "observer reports" of the actual action or outcomes of the action.
A body such as Wikipedia can only attempt to give a summary of those different observer reports. And of course this requires simplification and of course also might appear "one-sided" if some opinions are either in a minority below significance or if there are cultural / political pressures involved which affect "common sense" of people involved with compiling the articles (which is rather unfortunate but I can't see how Wikipedia could "fix" such a human problem as long as articles get written by human beings).
> depending on who is in charge in that particular country/
> wikipedia branch.
Again as I've stated in my last posting that's ok by me: That's ok because as long as there ARE still many different Wikipedia branches (and discussion sections) that have different "interpretations" people are still able to compare and can perform a "reality-check".
> while being totally reliable only when talking about
> sciences and math (typo and other errors excluded, obviously).
Having studied physics myself I'd say that there is no such thing as "totally reliable" in science. Yes, Wikipedia is probably pretty accurate in terms of natural sciences - but certainly not "totally reliable". People always need to read critically - and that in a reasonable way of course which doesn't make things easier ... .
> Grow up kid.
Well, posting insults as an anonymous coward isn't exactly something that would prove your own matureness - rather the opposite.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: wikipedia may be inaccurate, KDE is not.
by nae on Saturday 12/Apr/2008, @07:30
|
>Well, posting insults as an anonymous coward isn't exactly something that would prove your own matureness - rather the opposite.
You're saying there's no reality, that for example if german wikipedia would deny the olocaust they wouldn't be lying as " "Reality" is only a fuzzy and idealized thing that becomes more "verifiable" and only gets a meaning in human terms with (more) "observer reports" of the actual action or outcomes of the action.".
So even the fact that "grow up" was an insult is questionable,
for example in your case, for a lot of people, that could be a compliment,
don't you agree???? It's your own way of .... thinking. Maybe wikipedia in my country will tell that Torsten Rahn would likely need to grow, being just a point of view you should not get mad about it.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: wikipedia may be inaccurate, KDE is not.
by sebas on Sunday 06/Apr/2008, @09:59
|
You (and others) are unfortunately totally missing the point. Whether Wikipedia is accurate in all places is irrelevant here.
Think about this: I would've been deeply surprised hearing from the Wikipedia community that they shouldn't work together with KDE because KDE contains bugs. Hell, yes we do. KDE has lots of bugs. There is no such thing as "perfect". Well, maybe there is for software (though I strongly doubt that), there surely is not for "truth", "history" and "knowledge".
Now take a step back and realise that it's not about products (Wikipedia / KDE vs. Wikimedia e.V. / KDE e.V.). Wikimedia' e.V.'s mission is to promote the creation of Free knowledge knowledge. KDE e.V.'s mission is to support the creation of Free Desktop software.
Seriously, sometimes I wonder if they had been right rejecting our collaboration based on the stupidity and lack of vision of some people commenting on the Dot.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
