faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
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). |
|
|
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 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 ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
