Is the Internet a Valid Resource for Firearm Knowledge?

[GardoneVT]

This inquiry was inspired by a professor here who has made it clear Wikipedia ranks below "my brother's wife's second cousin" in terms of source validity.In viewing a set of YouTube videos on firearms I own and shoot, out of ten hits only two contained any information of merit, and all were ridddled with factual errors.

Combined with the recent thread about forum grievances and the spread of derp, I wonder if an informed pistolero should adopt the academic principle of my professor. If the source material is not a published book by an SME, and with the internet cluttered with nonsense posing as information, why bother?

[Tamara]

Is the Internet a Valid Resource for Firearm Knowledge?

Why are you asking the internet this question?


http://youtu.be/kj_fED9VUro

[GardoneVT]

Why are you asking the internet this question?

Because this cormer of it is enlightened enough to handle the subject matter.

[JV_]

and with the internet cluttered with nonsense posing as information, why bother?We've always had to separate the wheat from the chaff, I don't think that's different from the old printed world to the internet world. We just have access to a lot more data, so the separation task is harder.

The author/source of the information does matter, regardless of the transmission method.

[tremiles]

Schrödinger's Cat.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[JHC]

Why are you asking the internet this question?



ROFL --- aspirating Copenhagen --- still ROFL

[mizer67]

There are excellent pockets of knowledge on the internet, if you know where to look and how to evaluate the information presented in a critical manner, and yes the source does matter.

I taught myself to reload mainly by extensively reading websites dedicated to Bullseye and USPSA for instance, finding vetted posters, then through trial/error. With a wealth of knowledge at my fingertips, my learning curve was significantly shortened. That same knowledge would've been very time consuming and expensive for me to learn on my own or through other media.

[Artemas]

Because this cormer of it is enlightened enough to handle the subject matter.

This^

I think it depends on which part of the internet you are soliciting and a good bit of common sense.

I would rate wikipedia much higher than most off the shelf gun magazines.

[rob_s]

The problem with the good pockets is that even the bad pockets think they are good. And many of the pockets that are good to one group are ridiculed by another. A lot of the minutiae that gets discussed here is scoffed at by the Lightfighter bunch, while many here might find amusement in the fact that a guy who was an Army cook 25 years ago gets more cred there than someone that shoots matches 4 times a month. Perspective matters.

But you don't have that perspective until you've been around for quite a while. And even then, such things only matter to the aficionados, not the mass public. If one of us were to go onto a golfing forum would we be able to tell the difference between the duffers and the pros (assuming, of course, they don't have an SME process...).

The good news is that it doesn't matter. A golf pro comes here and asks for a holster suggestion for his Taurus judge and all the hipsters jump his ass. One of you goes to a golf forum and asks for a suggestion for a $25 driver and gets laughed into the sand trap. About the time that it matters if the guy giving you advice is an idiot or not, you are also at the point to tell the difference. It's the time when people are approaching that hump and working their way over it that they get the most annoyed, and annoying, about the fact that someone else knows less than they do.

it doesn't matter. Nobody cares.

so, there is tons of good information available on the internet, and everyone for whom separating out that good information matters, is capable of doing so.

[Tamara]

I would rate wikipedia much higher than most off the shelf gun magazines.

Definitely. The people who review guns in print mags are a pack of howling idiots. The people here are a lot smarter.

[Hambo]

If the source material is not a published book by an SME

Because nobody has ever published BS....

[Wondering Beard]

Because this cormer of it is enlightened enough to handle the subject matter.

Didn't you just answer your own question?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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.

[Suvorov]

This inquiry was inspired by a professor here who has made it clear Wikipedia ranks below "my brother's wife's second cousin" in terms of source validity.In viewing a set of YouTube videos on firearms I own and shoot, out of ten hits only two contained any information of merit, and all were ridddled with factual errors.

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.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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.

[RevolverRob]

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.

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

[pangloss]

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.

[Suvorov]

I'm not picking on you particularly, but since you brought it up. I'm not sure where the Academia Conspiracy™ ......ment.

As or the Academia Conspiracy™ if you think Wiki-hate is entertaining, try Open Access-hate.

-Rob

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.

[Suvorov]

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.

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.

[BWT]

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.

[Haraise]

Definitely. The people who review guns in print mags are a pack of howling idiots. The people here are a lot smarter.

2630

[Savage Hands]

This inquiry was inspired by a professor here who has made it clear Wikipedia ranks below "my brother's wife's second cousin" in terms of source validity.In viewing a set of YouTube videos on firearms I own and shoot, out of ten hits only two contained any information of merit, and all were ridddled with factual errors.

Combined with the recent thread about forum grievances and the spread of derp, I wonder if an informed pistolero should adopt the academic principle of my professor. If the source material is not a published book by an SME, and with the internet cluttered with nonsense posing as information, why bother?

I agree, why bother? Remove all sources to the Internet immediately! Godspeed.

[Tamara]

2630

2631

But what the hell, I'll be your huckleberry; that's just my game...

Are you saying that the person who wrote the cover article in the magazine you linked didn't honestly review the gun they had in their hands?

[RevolverRob]

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.

Bolded the most important part there. Like bad cops and corrupt politicians, you usually only hear about/from the loud, narcissistic, windbags. Group think is found in any field and it's certainly found in academia. I am not sure if it is a good amount. Academic environments are, ideally, forums for the free exchange of new and maybe radical ideas. For advanced career academics (grad students and professional scholars) that is usually what academic environments are. Unfortunately, for undergraduates, particularly at large massive state schools, that have replaced free dialog with, barely getting paid, hopefully capable, lecturer - that is not the case. Which is to say it's not group think per se because that would imply actual thinking and parroting. Instead it's lowest common denominator degree milling that has the same, very predictable, results in quality as any other form of mass-market product.

Gotta be honest what you're seeing isn't the byproduct of a nefarious group think plot. Instead its the result of a few things 1) Cultural shift to large-scale higher education as being necessary. 2) Politicians selling the idea that higher ed. isn't anything else besides grades 12-16. 3) The proliferation of the professional university administrator, who isn't an academic, hasn't taught a day in their life, and isn't really a scholar either. All of these combine with self-inflated egos and you get a recipe for what is easily construed as group think. Because in order to get the fifty-eight THOUSAND undergrads at my previous institution through their undergrad careers, at some level we have to stick them in a room and make them parrot stupid shit back to us and the end result is what you call "group think" and we call...well Dirty Deeds on the Down Done Cheap and it's not as though we are proud of it and some of us (most?) are fighting a losing battle to keep it from happening. I've given up on the idea of returning to glory days gone past and I, personally, am focused on working through a career in an attempt to make the academic world a better place when I leave it. We'll know if I am successful in about 40 years.

As an addendum usually what I find about these loud windbags is the louder they are the less prolific and well respected they are as academics. In my experience, which is now essentially the entirety of my adult life, in dealing with academics the good ones are way, way, way, too busy to complain about things like Wikipedia. Most of them (us) are balancing administrative responsibility, professional development/service, course teaching, mentoring and supervising of students at multiple levels (undergrad and grad), doing original research, writing original research, and looking for and applying for grant funding. Personally, I worked 73 hours last week, I don't have a lot of time to complain about Wikipedia.

[Haraise]

2631

But what the hell, I'll be your huckleberry; that's just my game...

Are you saying that the person who wrote the cover article in the magazine you linked didn't honestly review the gun they had in their hands?

I was just seeing if you'd post your cover. ;)

[JLM]

The problem with the good pockets is that even the bad pockets think they are good. And many of the pockets that are good to one group are ridiculed by another. A lot of the minutiae that gets discussed here is scoffed at by the Lightfighter bunch, while many here might find amusement in the fact that a guy who was an Army cook 25 years ago gets more cred there than someone that shoots matches 4 times a month. Perspective matters.

But you don't have that perspective until you've been around for quite a while. And even then, such things only matter to the aficionados, not the mass public. If one of us were to go onto a golfing forum would we be able to tell the difference between the duffers and the pros (assuming, of course, they don't have an SME process...).

The good news is that it doesn't matter. A golf pro comes here and asks for a holster suggestion for his Taurus judge and all the hipsters jump his ass. One of you goes to a golf forum and asks for a suggestion for a $25 driver and gets laughed into the sand trap. About the time that it matters if the guy giving you advice is an idiot or not, you are also at the point to tell the difference. It's the time when people are approaching that hump and working their way over it that they get the most annoyed, and annoying, about the fact that someone else knows less than they do.

it doesn't matter. Nobody cares.

so, there is tons of good information available on the internet, and everyone for whom separating out that good information matters, is capable of doing so.

This. The key I think consists of three things:

1. we all have some degree of 'confirmation bias'. You to have be mindful of that
2. exercise your critical thinking skills
3. you have to be somewhat adept at data analysis, or to put it finer terms you must develop your "bullshit detector"

ETA: Rob is totally right about Lightfighter xD. Sad really, it wasn't like that back when I joined in like....2001 maybe?

[Joe in PNG]

Sturgeon's law is pretty true for most every source of information, internet or otherwise.
One may as well ask if your local newscast was a good source for local news.

[pangloss]

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.

Regarding Wikipedia, I was out of school before it hit the scene, so I've never dealt with it from the student perspective. I've heard students comment that some professors frowned on it though. However, I don't think this disapproval should be termed "groupthink." Rob's comments about the free exchange of ideas are accurate but I think he under emphasized the egotism that often accompanies it. For example I was at a conference once when a guy asking questions from the audience and the speaker giving the presentation got into a yelling match. I've also seen faculty members scream at each other in departmental seminars and freely insult each other. Obviously these people were not embracing in a big groupthink hug. Wikipedia is perceived as a threat because it is outside of the historical norm and has no "keeper," so to speak. How do you rebut a lousy Wikipedia entry? It has no peer review, and no one's name is attached to it. It's also much more accessible that the traditional scientific literature. Combine all of these things, and you can see how "the establishment" would perceive Wikipedia as a threat. It is an insult to ego and arrogance rather than an affront to groupthink.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Hand Held Howitzer - http://americanhandgunner.com/the-heizer-ps1-pocket-shotgun/


When stoked with some proper defensive ammo I just cannot fathom an attacker continuing his malfeasance after meeting the Pocket Shotgun in an awkward social encounter.

In written form or on the Internet - take your pick. I was once asked to write an article about negligent discharges but a new editor ditched it because it was too technical - oops, sorry for reading the ergonomics journals.

OH - to Pangloss - best thing I saw at an academic conference:

Guy asks presenter a question. Answer - you asked the same thing last year, you were too stupid to understand the answer then. Are you smarter now?

[Tamara]

Hand Held Howitzer - http://americanhandgunner.com/the-heizer-ps1-pocket-shotgun/

My soul hurts.

[NerdAlert]

Hand Held Howitzer - http://americanhandgunner.com/the-heizer-ps1-pocket-shotgun/



In written form or on the Internet - take your pick. I was once asked to write an article about negligent discharges but a new editor ditched it because it was too technical - oops, sorry for reading the ergonomics journals.

OH - to Pangloss - best thing I saw at an academic conference:

Guy asks presenter a question. Answer - you asked the same thing last year, you were too stupid to understand the answer then. Are you smarter now?

I couldn't help but notice the guy that wrote that is a MEDICAL DOCTOR. Wow. I am flabbergasted.


Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.

[TR675]

From my many and varied dealings with medical doctors, let me assure you that they do not have a complete, solid and learned handle on the complete breadth of all human knowledge, although quite a few of them seem to think that they do - my apologies to Sawbones and Sensei :).

[NerdAlert]

I would like to think that a doctor would at least have some concept of wounding mechanisms, or at least search out the peer reviewed studies on same before writing for a gun magazine. I basically look at doctors like I do mechanics. There are those that are very passionate about their craft and those that aren't. I guess that goes for every profession but it makes me sad when I see people with supposedly valuable credentials saying stupid things. I don't care if it's an ASE master certified mechanic or an MD. :(


Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.