User talk:Taraborn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Taraborn! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I think its very important for you to browse through some of the links below so as to become familiar with how Wikipedia works. If you need any help you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and another Wikipedian will show up shortly. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you're already loving Wikipedia and plan on becoming a Wikipedian you might consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor, just paste {{Adoptme}} into your userpage and you will gladly be adopted! You might also consider joining a WikiProject so as to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Just H 20:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

[edit] Request for adoption

I see that were requesting adoption. Would you like me to adopt you? If you want to find out more about me, see my user page. You may also want to look at my description on the adopters' page. If you want me to adopt you, click the "edit" button to the right of the section heading of this message, and type below that you want me to adopt you. Please end your message with 4 tildes, which will sign your username and the time you replied.. (~~~~)--TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 00:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm adopting you! :). I have set up an adoption page, for you to ask about anything, here. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 12:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have moved your question from my talk page to your adoption page. Please ask all questions there. That's where I will give replies. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to answer as I must eat dinner and then do loads of homework. I will probably respond tomorrow morning. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] it's the only encyclopedia that grows faster than you can read :D

Excellent observation! I naively thought that I could at least skim through most of what was here but then soon came to realize what 1000 was, let alone 10,000 or 100,000 or, 1,000,000 or even several of those. We have a lot of jumping-off articles - I hope that you continue to enjoy them as much as do I. --hydnjo talk 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My photos

Thanks mate,

My camera is a Canon Powershot A520. It is just a point-and-shoot, but it is a Canon, which are superb quality. You just have to learn how to manipulate it by using the manual settings. --liquidGhoul 14:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

Happy Birthday Taraborn! | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here}

I wish you a Happy Birthday! I hope you have a magnificent day! You are a year older now, enjoy it! AndonicO Talk · Sign Here

.

You're welcome. I think I won't mention the second part of your message though. ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 18:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Me and Wikipedia

Hello, Taraborn. Thanks for your comments. Let me cover them in some sort of order. Apologies for the length.

I don't want to sound rude

Don't worry, no offense taken!

but your criticism of Wikipedia as a "philosophy"

Now, where did I suggest that? The theory is fine, it's the practice that I consider flawed. Not critically, but flawed nonetheless. After all, what isn't? Some systems have more flaws than others, or different degrees of severity. Sure I could have argued against the principles of the place, but I could do that with anything.

"Bad" edits (which includes vandalism) are countered very fast due to the huge side of the Wikipedia community and Wikipedia bots.

I never suggested they weren't. I have a watchlist and I do my own share of the reverts. But that doesn't change the fact that people, with the best intentions in the world, add information that is unsourced, misleading or simply erroneous. Usually they're seen to very quickly. But sometimes they're convincing enough not to be caught for ages, never given the appropriate {{fact}}, tag, or cause a large discussion among the "regular" editors of a page as to whether something is correct because it can't be verified (or falsified) elsewhere. But as I said, they generally lead to an improvement in the article, either by verification from an alternative source, or simply by the general attention the edit brought to the article.

But for what it's worth, I wrote that bit several times, and changed it again after I put it up, but was still never happy with how it sounded. You've just shown why. :(

Ultimately, Wikipedia will never be 100% reliable., nothing is 100% reliable, and there is no such thing as a reliable source of information.

Again, did I ever say there was...

It is not something to trust inherently as an authoritative source, funny one, so I see you trust particular sources due to their reputation, when someone should only trust scientific proofs (isn't that a form of argumentum ad hominem fallacy?).

...And did I ever say I did? Some sources are more reliable than others, but everything is relative. Wikipedia is, on the whole, very good. That isn't to say there aren't certain other sources I won't, typically, trust more. Equally, it isn't to say that there aren't times I won't trust Wikipedia over another established source.

But yes, ultimately I will take certain sources as "authoritative" (which as I'm sure you know is not the same as "100% reliable"), in the sense that I'll accept that as the last word (for the moment). Eventually we all have to do that if we're going to believe something, and - provided an article checks out and the references look as reliable as they can to a layman - I'll accept Wikipedia by proxy. Indeed, if the article comes across as informed I may well trust it, at least as much as anything else, without them. Although perhaps these "authoritative" sources aren't the ones you're thinking I mean...

Wikipedia references its statements, which is the best thing an information database can do. Most encyclopedias don't, you accept their statements as the truth... Encarta says "this is this way" when Wikipedia says "John Doe says this is this way".

Well said. And those are the occasions I'll trust Wikipedia over something else. Although, just so you know, and at least in my own field, it's precisely those references I'll go to over Wikipedia, not another encyclopedia (I don't even have access to any other encyclopedias); I've added several such sources here myself. This place is only as good as the sources it cites, and I sometimes know when a "reputable" source isn't worth the paper it's printed on. And sometimes the wrong sources are cited with the best of intentions; I've changed a few of those, too. Scientific journals are no less infallible than the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta.

But if it's not something I know about (which, let's be honest, is nearly everything!) I'll trust Wiki if the article comes across well, and (IMO) rightly so. You take any source, be it here, another encyclopedia, a journal, whatever, you have to take it on faith at some level. Wiki is no different. I have to believe those editors have done a good job, just as they have to believe I have. But I've been using this place much longer than I've been contributing, and I know how to look for a good article and information that's likely to be correct. Too many people will read anything, naively take it as true, then get a bad impression of the place if it turns out to be incorrect. That's what gives Wikipedia an unfairly poor reputation in some circles, not vandalism. That's what we're all doing our best to improve. That's why (barring grammar etc.) I only work on articles I can provide sources for. I do my share of upholding Wikipedia as a reliable source in discussion with friends and acquantainces (online and off), and its poor reputation is unfounded. My little piece was intended to address that reputation, not the actual truth.

I thank you for your comments. Perhaps much of what I wrote was badly put across. You've given me plenty to think about, so I expect I'll rewrite that section to come across much less foolhardy. Spiral Wave 00:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there was no need to apologise! The fact that you felt so strongly about it shows what a bad job I did of getting my point across. It never even occurred to me someone might think I was talking about other encyclopedias or similar sources, so I'm grateful.

Let's see then... "...particularly vulnerable to untrue but convincing, hard to refute and most times even being good faithed edits". Well, yes I suppose that would be a good way of putting it. Wiki's strength is that it's dynamic; it can be kept up to date, it's constantly evolving, and you can find all sorts of nuggets of information you might never find elsewhere, at least by yourself. But those same features leave it open to misplaced but well-meaning edits, or deliberately wrong but questionable or un(dis)proveable ones (I just made that word up, bet you didn't notice). I don't think that's avoidable, all we can do is keep on checking and improving.

The thing is, Wikipedia is often the place people come to check facts and figures, or arcane bits of urban legend. Those are the bits you can't typically get from other "conventional" (for want of a better word) places, so they're one of Wiki's greatest strengths. And those are often the bits that are easiest to get wrong, accidentally or deliberately, or else they simply date quickly; so they're one of its greatest weaknesses as well. I know for myself I come here often to check certain figures, but I'm always wary of them without checking the source and its date. So people don't trust them (sometimes correctly), Wiki gets mocked, becomes a target for further hasty or vandalous edits, and the process repeats. I don't know how you can solve that, beyond having good teams of editors working together to improve things. I don't think there are any easy answers, other than "just keep at it." A bit like real life, really. Just like it, in fact. If everthing else stands up to scrutiny too, then those more... ephemeral... pieces of information are more likely to be trusted. Which is good, because they're usually sourced and right. I'd say most regular contributors would have to be pretty confident of something like that before they added it, because they know how it'll get treated.

As for improving the practice, that's the same I think; just keep at it. Sometimes "flawed" is the best you can do. There were all sorts of discussions in the news last year of Jimbo considering whether pages need to be locked against unregistered users, and there are so many different levels of protection and users... it's messy, and I don't pretend to know enough to know what to do. It might be nice if the responses for semi-protection were a bit more rapid or easier to come by, or there were more people around who could do that sort of thing - revert wars against clear vandals sometimes go on needlessly long - but beyond that I don't know. You can't stop incorrect good faith edits, it's daft to try or even to want to.

Hmm... I hope that answers your questions? It's a bit out of my depth to be honest, I know what I can do, and this sort of philosophical or social analysis isn't part of it! But I think replying to you has forced me to kind of gather my thoughts a bit, so it's helped me. Thank you! Spiral Wave 00:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I have replied to you on my talk page. This message is in case you don't have my talk page on your watchlist, or you are an IP who doesn't have a watchlist. --TeckWiz^ParlateContribs_@