Jan
28
I wonder how Kobe feels about this …
By
(click image for a larger view)
Oh you darn tootin’ Red Sox fans.
(Jeter’s wiki page has since been fixed … h/t Slugger27)
84 Comments»
RAB Info
The Founders
Mike Axisa, Ben Kabak, Joe Pawlikowski
Editor-In-Chief
Mike Axisa Archives | Email
Managing Editors
Ben Kabak Archives | E-mail
Joe Pawlikowski Archives | E-mail
Contributing Editors
Larry Koestler (Archives)
Moshe Mandel (Archives)
Stephen Rhoads (Archives)
Weekend Writers
Hannah Ehrlich (Archives)
Matthew Warden (Archives)
Special Contributor
J.R. O'Grady (Archives)
Subscribe to RAB by RSS and Twitter
Follow @RiverAveBlues Search RAB
Spring Training Countdown
Just 5 days 'til pitchers and catchers report.Banner Design By
Its funny how many people trust Wiki as a viable research page. Something is really wrong when any person can change a entry to a Wiki page, although they recently altered it so you cannot interefere with celebrities.
I think that’s a very limited way of looking at it. The mass editing features of Wikipedia make it more accurate, not less. If you haven’t participated in the lengthy discussions that go along with each article, you might not understand. But there are discussions to ensure that the information presented is accurate and as neutral as possible.
That said, no, you shouldn’t use the text itself for research. It’s a good jumping-off point, though, as there are usually many citations in the text. These are trustworthy documents you can use for research.
So please, don’t give me the old-school line of “everyone having editing capabilities is bad.” Yeah, you might be able to cherry pick evidence based on a few instances of vandalism. They usually get cleared up pretty quickly. I got the Jeter page reverted within 10 minutes of finding out about it.
I got the Jeter page reverted within 10 minutes of finding out about it.
Narc.
got the Jeter page reverted within 10 minutes of finding out about it.
you are drunk with power.
Of course he has, have you ever tried to go mad without power? It’s horrible, nobody listens to you.
Rod Blagojevich says hello.
That was from The Simpsons Movie
“It’s a good jumping-off point”
That truly is what that site is about. Get some general info on somebody but do not take it as gospel.
What I am saying is try to cite Wiki on a term paper and you get told it isn’t acceptable. Any site that can be screwed up by some kid who is bored cannot be a concrete source. That’s not to say it isn’t useful; it just cannot be relied upon as being fully credible. You really cannot argue that.
I agree. Tommie puts it best:
http://riveraveblues.com/2009/.....ent-269530
What I am saying is try to cite Wiki on a term paper and you get told it isn’t acceptable.
Similarly, mention wOBA to Corky Simpson and he’ll tell you to suck a lemon. A professor not taking time to examine the relative validity of new media sources in comparison to old media sources does not mean all new media sources are inherently less reliable.
That’s not to say it isn’t useful; it just cannot be relied upon as being fully credible.
And yet, while it can’t be relied on as being fully credible, many of the other, similar, older sources are just as equally unreliable. That’s the crux of the matter here: yes, Wiki can be hacked by bored 16 year olds. That fact alone does not disqualify it as a reliable source of information. It’s like saying that nothing from CBS News can ever be trusted ever again because Dan Rather screwed up one story about President Bush. It’s like saying that because some waiter in some restaurant dropped your steak on the floor and picked it up, that means all waiters everywhere can never be trusted to give you your food dirt-free.
and the damn kids trying to use Wikipedia to write research papers wonder why Wikipedia isnt considered an accurate source for information.
They actually did a study and proved that Wiki has more inaccuracies that the Encyclopedia Britannica. Wiki got me through college!
And when I say more, I mean less….
1) Grammar Nazi: you mean fewer
2) I believe the study showed Wikipedia had a few more inaccuracies per article, but that the difference was not significant. Scholars say that the errors in Wikipedia articles are more egregious, but I believe that’s scholars trying to protect their own turf.
At its best Wikipedia is a well-sourced reference. Not only that, the resources used to create the article are easy to find, unlike with a physical encyclopedia. It’s not perfect, but it’s always a work in progress.
And here’s the thing: Wikipedia is more self correcting. When something is wrong, it’s either corrected quickly by experts (or laypeople who recognize it as an obvious error) or it’s loudly flagged as being untrustworthy or incomplete.
99% of the stuff I’ve seen on Wiki that’s inaccurate is blatantly and intentionally inaccurate, not subtly and misleadingly inaccurate. Like, a Wiki article claiming that Jeter is a huge douchebag, not claiming that Jeter was born in California and not Michigan. Basically, when the article’s wrong, it’s wrong in such a way that it’s an obvious prank that’s easily spotted and ignored. There’s not many Wiki articles that give a plausible yet incorrect fact (like claiming that urine makes your hands tougher). Just wildly implausible ones.
Furthermore, people need to remember that Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a collection of primary source documents. If you’re doing a scholarly research paper, no, you shouldn’t base it on Wiki articles, but you similarly shouldn’t base it on Brittanica articles, because they’re both merely encyclopedias: agglomerations of brief, incomplete summaries of various topics compliled and reviewed by small groups of experts. What they present and what they omit are at the whim of the experts doing the compiling. To say that Wiki is less trustworthy than Britannica is false; in fact, it’s more trustworthy (as Joe implied) because it has widened editing access not to a select few experts but to numerous experts. But neither source is a reliable primary source; they’re both merely secondary or tertiary sources prone to human interpretation and emphasis.
Also, regarding static encyclopedias, see the Appeal to Authority fallacy.
Heh, I loved that linked article the other day about how every single aspect of the Hall of Fame is one logical fallacy after another. Hilarious and yet soberly true.
those RSNers are so mischievous.
Meh… doesn’t bother me.
Corny
Agreed. I vote we put that meme to bed.
Kobe Bryant says:
Meh… doesn’t bother me.
Liar. We all know you’re a “Single White Female” who’s a B-List actor obsessed with Derek Jeter and how everyone perceives you and that you’re so not “one of the guys” as evidenced by your refusal to share the ball with Shaq or get your own coffee. This Wikipedia hack calling someone else the Laker Captain is tearing you apart inside, Black Mamba
(h/t to Classy Joe Torre for the characterization cliches)
Come on, that’s pretty funny. Its like messing with a friends facebook page that leaves it logged in, its fair game.
Then what? You do each others hair and talk about boys? WTF?
Maybe a pillow fight somewhere in there.
Ghost stories?
Don’t get your hopes up, there, Popavero.
Lol
I just wish you guys would stick to talking about baseball stuff instead of this stupid wikipedia article. I find your coverage of these sorts of “whimsy” things to be completely unprofessional and just plain dumb. -
Inexplicably_Angry_First_Time_Commenter_Guy_Who_Just_Came_Out_of_the_Woodwork_
to_Complain_About_the_1_Post_out_of_3000_That_Might_Not_Be_Directly_Yankees_
Related75.
Edit by RAB: And who breaks the site with long strings in comments, and who DOESN’T CLOSE THE FREAKING ITALICS TAG!
IETC
?
I enjoyed this comment.
We really need a glossary/compendium of RAB memes, phrases, and in-jokes.
*cough*open thread*cough*
Why? So we don’t have to preface or footnote comments with
******** SARCASM ALERT **********
?
Because that’s really fucking lame.
well played
Yeah, then when some neophyte screams “WHAT DO YOU MEAN, YOU IDIOT, MELKY CABRERA TOTALLY SUCKED BALLS LAST YEAR WHAT ARE YOU TEH STUPID!!!!” we can just hyperlink him to the compendium and let him figure it out himself.
Ah ok thanks. I enjoyed the acronym.
Heh. I didn’t think you had to close them if you didn’t want anything after the first one to be normal font. My bad yo. Wont happen again
I take offense to that.
Haha just kidding, I fooled you. ‘Tis I, The Honorable Congressman Mondesi! See what I did there with the whole hackneyed “using someone else’s name thing?” … ( http://instantcrickets.com/ ) … ( http://tinyurl.com/cpx22r )
(… Pat, your comment was awesome. Golf clap to you, my good man.)
Mondesi, you’ve given us a concrete example of what has been said many times in words. I agree. Posting under a celebrity name (or any name other than your regular handle) is Bush League. We might consider entering this into the Commenting Guidelines.
For the record, whenever I do my “For Diamond Cutters, I’m Peter Gammons, ESPN” or “Sincerely, John Kruk/John Harper/the Mainstream Media/etc.” gags, I always keep my name the same (and visible).
Not only should RAB put the kibosh on handle-hopping, I still maintain we need a wall of shame for commenters who’ve been banned (or roundly beaten/mocked) and who come back posting under a new handle.
“For the record, whenever I do my “For Diamond Cutters, I’m Peter Gammons, ESPN” or “Sincerely, John Kruk/John Harper/the Mainstream Media/etc.” gags, I always keep my name the same (and visible).”
I totally didn’t mean that kind of stuff, my bad about being unclear. There’s clearly a difference.
Yeah, I know what you were saying. I know you know the difference.
Just like I know you know the difference between Bernie Williams in CF and Raul Mondesi in CF.
Yup. Bernie’s unfortunate lack of a Mondestache ( http://tinyurl.com/c3knjn ) and Raul’s cannon-arm fused to his torso by Odin.
“Posting under a celebrity name (or any name other than your regular handle) is Bush League.”
I second that emotion. It’s just so lazy and… done.
Haha. Used that handle again. Was it a mistake? Was it part of the joke? You’ll never know!
Mondei, we know you. It was a mistake.
M-O-N-D-E-S-I
Haha, it’s like clockwork.
At least you didn’t call it a grammatical error. If one more person calls a typo a grammatical error I’m going postal.
If one more person calls a typo a grammatical error I’m going postal.
Hey Farva, whats the name of that place you like to eat at with all the goofy shit on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?
Posting under a celebrity name (or any name other than your regular handle) is Bush League.
If I buy you all big fat diamond rings will you forgive me?
NO.
Is there going to be a chat this snow filled afternoon?
We’ll see how everything goes this morning.
Wiki is usually real good at changing it back quick.
By the way, the “University of Tennesse” section on Todd Helton, was originally put in there by yours truly.
I bet you’ll never guess where the Brittongate section of Chris Britton’s entry came from.
Nice & the self source, double whammy
Damn that Curt Schilling.
It’s A-Rod’s fault
Isn’t everything?
I agree, but not just this page. Misinformation and deceit in general is A-Rod’s fault.
Twas arod not eve who ate the forbidden fruit.
The economy is A-Rod’s fault.
Mike Pop is ARod’s fault.
Arod is a little too “effeminate” for my taste.
Heh.
Show me the data to back this statement up.
All the World Series we lost since the start of baseball is A-Rod’s fault.
Jon Garland is A-Rod’s fault.
how do we know it wasnt arod?
For…tsjc,
Compendium? A little early in the day for those $.50 words isn’t it? Concise is the word, before noon. After noon like now it’s ok.
JPYC
Would you prefer “Précis”? “Concordance”?
“Deuterocanonicals and Apocrypha”, perhaps?
—————————————————-
Homer: So I thought to myself, “What would God do in this situation?”
Bart: (chuckles) Locusts. They’ll drive him nuts.
Homer: (pats copy of Bible in pocket) It’s all in the Bible, son… it’s the prankster’s bible.
tsjc….
You’re ok! Funny and a wise guy but, that’s ok too. Gives some life to the party, I’m obviously not good with the one liners, i have a predilection to the more mundane.
Off Topic:
Manny starting negotiations with unknown teams (via sports center)
Heh
yankees
Garland to the D-Backs.
Russ Ortiz says hello.
he does? bastard wouldn’t return my calls.
That order of protection still stands, SDO…