Because nobody has ever published BS....Originally Posted by GardoneVT
Because nobody has ever published BS....
Didn't you just answer your own question?
The question is ill-defined. Do you mean just social media? I can reference professional journals in law, social and physical sciences, etc. through the Internet. I can also find web pages by published scholarly experts that summarize their works or basic principles. Such summaries are solicited by sites for a general audience of interest.
So there are plenty of vetted and peer reviewed sources out there that are accessible. In today's world a book is sometimes way behind the curve.
Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; 10-01-2014 at 04:08 PM.
And why does this professor (and many in academia) disparage Wiki so much? Is it by chance because "knowledge" which academia had for so long claimed as there own, only to be given out to those worthy, to be sanitized and editorialized to support the orthodoxy of academia, and to be controlled - is now in the hands of the unwashed masses? Honestly - I trust Wiki far more than I trust many trade publications and accepted sources of knowledge. Just look where most academic institutions stand on gun control and ask yourself if they are in it for the truth or simply to support their orthodoxy of the world.
Now with that little lane drift over with, I certainly believe the internet is a valid source of firearm knowledge. I can go to You Tube right now and watch videos with Paul Howe, Ernest Langdon, and Kyle Lamb. I can listen to podcasts of Ballistic Radio and I can download DocKGR's powerpoints and look up what rounds he recommends for defensive use. NONE of this I would have easy access to without the internet unless I just happened upon Doc's dentist office for some facial reconstruction. That said, I can also watch InstructorZero or get enthralled in the Cory and Hot Girl scandal so the key is knowing the difference. While certainly many of the Grand Masters of Derp will peg my BS meter pretty quickly, the rest may be a little harder to identify immediately and the internet (this Forum for instance) will help me in that respect as well. Sure, there is a lot of crap on the net, but I would say the signal to noise ration is on average higher than at your local gun store and on the net, it is a lot easier to type in another URL than to head to the next town's gun store.
BTW - some of the professional organizations have wiki projects to try to maintain quality in the major presentations of their subject domains. If you get into the techy ones - they can be quite good.
On controversial pop topics - feh. 9 vs 45? Never looked for that.
I'm not picking on you particularly, but since you brought it up. I'm not sure where the Academia Conspiracy™ began, but man is it fascinating to see it when it appears. As though Evil Academics United™ gets together every year to decide who the haves and have nots are with respect to knowledge. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that Evil Academics™ aren't out there, being elitest pricks and jackasses to the "lay" public. But if you wander into most graduate level seminar classes it's not a matter of those in the class being deemed worthy of knowledge by the Academic Elite™, rather it's more that those in the class have the requisite background to effectively understand and integrate the complex material in those courses. I'm gonna tell you man, I have not been getting my invitations to Evil Academics United™ and I am supremely pissed about it, because I work hard to be as evil as can be.
As for Wiki hate from academics - I have only found it to be largely perpetrated by close-minded individuals. Which was actually going to be the point I was about to make. Gardonne, I suspect you want to be very careful in listening to that particular professor. Initially Wiki hate was common, because it wasn't reviewed in the ways of the old Encyclopedia Britannica for instance, which was carefully reviewed by professional scholars in the fields of interests, and compiled by a professional editor. Frequently, in the early days of Wikipedia information was flat wrong or incorrect and even today I regularly correct Wikipedia errors when I find them (primarily grammar errors, because still no professional editors). It also wasn't nearly as good at listing proper citations. The good news is, today, it's much, much, much better largely due to the open access policies of the community and lively debate over subject matter, often weighed in on by scholars in those fields AND it has a substantial and very acceptable base line for citations about a subject. Academics who haven't changed their mind about Wikipedia have generally not given it a second chance and/or are typically very invested in one-side of a debate that they feel is not adequately portrayed in the Wikipedia entry of their choice. Certainly, some feel that these data shouldn't be put forth by the "common man", but I doubt very seriously at all that it is "many" in academia. Chances are if you wander through a grad student office suite, at least 60% and maybe 100% of the office may have a Wikipedia tab open at that very moment.
As or the Academia Conspiracy™ if you think Wiki-hate is entertaining, try Open Access-hate.
-Rob
I am an academic scientist, and I have corrected Wikipedia entries too. The Evil Academics United people should have sent me some sort of notice.
As to information sources, I am skeptical of all of them. I work hard to be an informed consumer.
OK. Fair enough. I admit to engagingly in a fair degree of hyperbole. That said - there seems to be, at least to my eyes, a good amount of group think coming from the many in academia and this accepted group think is often counter to my experiences. I am glad to hear that Wiki is more accepted among many professors and this guy is the exception. He is however an exception that I hear of fairly often. Now what I find pretty hypocritical (and what leads me to my tin foil hatted feelings about main stream academia) is that I would bet that this guy would have little issue with someone sighting the NY Times or any other "respected" journal - despite the fact that at least in my area of expertise - they are usually far less accurate than your typical Wiki.
I'm sorry to drag you into the dirt.
Correcting Wiki entries in your area of expertise is fine - in fact it is better than fine, it is how things are supposed to work. And it is an entirely different matter than proclaiming that Wikipedia is a totally unreliable source of information.
I certainly wouldn't have the exposure and knowledge of firearms I have and have had without the internet. It's been a great resource to me. That being said, it's like everything; be willing to take advice but verify.
Think about every ridiculous thing you've heard at gun stores. Imagine if that's where you lived; I'd probably own a Bushmaster AR and have no idea about it not being mil-spec ("Its just as good"). Although, as I grow older; I do grow more testing of words. I give most people pause before altering what I know to be true because they said so.
I would've made a lot of less informed purchases.
ETA: That's just because I wouldn't have the resources I do now to research info.
Reply With Quote