Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

[coberst]

Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

The following is a paragraph from a Wikipedia entry for Thomas Kuhn’s book titled “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

Quote:
“The changes that occur in politics, society and business are often expressed in Kuhnian terms, however poor their parallel with the practice of science may seem to scientists and historians of science. The terms "paradigm" and "paradigm shift" have become such notorious clichés and buzzwords that they are viewed in many circles as being effectively devoid of content and their use in these contexts rarely has any firm foundation in Kuhn's original definitions.”

This paragraph gives us some insight into the dangers inherent in our sound-bite, bumper-sticker society, in which many people gain a small fragment of knowledge and from this fragment are deluded into thinking that they comprehend very complex ideas.

I am not much of a user of Wikipedia and thus have little knowledge upon which I can answer my own question.

[wollery]

In other words "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

When has this not been true?

[fuelair]

Yes. Sometimes.

[coberst]

In other words "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

When has this not been true?


As I mentioned in the OP, your bumper-sticker knowledge often gives the illusion of comprehending complex ideas.

When individuals think that their sound-bites represent sophisticated comprehension they are fooled into embracing what is a significant degree of ignorance. If one does not recognize ignorance that person is not motivated to seek a more sophisticated degree of understanding.

[drkitten]

As I mentioned in the OP, your bumper-sticker knowledge often gives the illusion of comprehending complex ideas.

Your pretentious overwriting also gives the illusion of comprehending simple ideas.

I have more belief in the usefulness of wollery's ability to make complex stuff simple than your ability to make simple stuff complex.


If one does not recognize ignorance that person is not motivated to seek a more sophisticated degree of understanding.

To which I respond -- as a sound bite -- "Physician, heal thyself."

[wollery]

As I mentioned in the OP, your bumper-sticker knowledge often gives the illusion of comprehending complex ideas. I see that irony is a concept which is foreign to you. :rolleyes:

When individuals think that their sound-bites represent sophisticated comprehension they are fooled into embracing what is a significant degree of ignorance. If one does not recognize ignorance that person is not motivated to seek a more sophisticated degree of understanding.What exactly is complex about the idea that many people who have only a passing understanding of a subject think that they have a deep understanding of it? This has always been the case, and will always be the case. It's part of human nature. The internet simply allows them access to a wider range of subjects to not fully understand.

[Darth Rotor]

I see that irony is a concept which is foreign to you. :rolleyes:

What exactly is complex about the idea that many people who have only a passing understanding of a subject think that they have a deep understanding of it? This has always been the case, and will always be the case. It's part of human nature. The internet simply allows them access to a wider range of subjects to not fully understand.
Amen to that last. You guys have piqued my curiosity.

The first usage I ever saw was "soundbyte." I hadn't realized soundbite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_bite"bite") was correct, and must now dig into the term's etymology to find out which came first: soundbite or soundbyte.

ETA: OK, from eggcorns (http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/546/sound-byte)
You’ll be happy to know that the Oxford English Dictionary agrees with you. In 1993, “sound bite” was added under “sound” with this definition: “orig. U.S., a brief extract from a recorded interview, statement, etc., usu. edited into a news report on account of its aphoristic or provocative quality; transf., a phrase or sentence intended by its speaker to be quoted in this way.”

The OED cites the 22 June 1980 Washington Post for the first use of the phrase: “Remember that any editor watching needs a concise, 30-second sound bite. Anything more than that, you’re losing them” (emphasis mine).

DR

[Ducky]

Amen to that last. You guys have piqued my curiosity.

The first usage I ever saw was "soundbyte." I hadn't realized soundbite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_bite"bite") was correct, and must now dig into the term's etymology to find out which came first: soundbite or soundbyte.

DR

Going on my assumption and profession (which means I may get this very wrong) I would assume "byte" is more correct than "bite" because the digital conversion of sound results in files larger than a byte. I'll take "bite" to refer to bits. However, it may be that the reference of "soundbite" is more socially driven than technical (ie. taking a bit of sound is taking a soundbite)

From answers.com:

byte (bīt) pronunciation
[n.]
A sequence of adjacent bits, usually eight, operated on as a unit by a computer.

8 bits to a byte. Early digital converters were 8 bit. now 24 bit conversion is standard with movement toward 32 and 64.

But I've never bothered to find out what the actual epytomology of that term is. I just inferred what I know from being an audio engineer and probably overgeneralized it.

[drkitten]

Going on my assumption and profession (which means I may get this very wrong) I would assume "byte" is more correct than "bite" because the digital conversion of sound results in files larger than a byte. I'll take "bite" to refer to bits. However, it may be that the reference of "soundbite" is more socially driven than technical (ie. taking a bit of sound is taking a soundbite)

The term originated in political journalism long before technical terminology like "byte" was widespread.

So "bite" is prior and prescriptively more correct. Of course, prescriptively, one can't be "more correct" because one is either correct or one isn't, but "correctness" doesn't scale (like "uniqueness"). So bugger prescriptivism sideways with a claw hammer anyway.....

[Ducky]

The term originated in political journalism long before technical terminology like "byte" was widespread.

So "bite" is prior and prescriptively more correct. Of course, prescriptively, one can't be "more correct" because one is either correct or one isn't, but "correctness" doesn't scale (like "uniqueness"). So bugger prescriptivism sideways with a claw hammer anyway.....

indeed. Thanks :)

[rjh01]

Whether knowledge is dangerous depends on how you use it, rather than how much of it you have. For example having the ability to make a bomb is more dangerous the more you know.

A little knowledge is not dangerous if you know you only know a little. If you think you know more than you do then you can look a fool if you use your knowledge (the bombs do not work, or your arguments get shot down in flames).

[coberst]

This is a response I received that you might find interesting.

I'm a current college student, and any paper that cites Wikipedia as a source automatically gets a failing grade. It's not an appropriate scholarly source, since the articles are anonymous and therefore the author's credentials cannot be verified. For this reason, it doesn't qualify as an authoritative source. It's also edit-able by anyone, as was mentioned uptopic.

I had one prof that said he didn't even want us using it as an idea generator. That said, I often refer to it, but only to get general information. I have other sources. Questia.com is an awesome library. It's not free, but a hundred bucks a year for the kind of research I can do there is well worth it.

[wollery]

This is a response I received that you might find interesting.No, not particularly.

[drkitten]

No, not particularly.

Give him credit. It's no less interesting than anything else he's posted.

[Jimbo07]

If you already know what you're looking for (like trying to remember the exact form of an equation), the technical subjects on Wiki can be quite useful.

Our E&M prof. mentioned that things like electronics articles can be surprisingly good for what it is that they're trying to convey.

There are probably more problems for 'current events' articles. ;)

[robinson]

Interesting. Using Answers.com (the worlds greatest encyclodictionalmanacapedia), Wikipedia has the longest definition. As well as many links and stuff.

http://www.answers.com/topic/soundbite

[Piscivore]

I had one prof that said he didn't even want us using it as an idea generator. That said, I often refer to it, but only to get general information.

I guess you don't listen any better than you read.

[UserGoogol]

Interesting. Using Answers.com (the worlds greatest encyclodictionalmanacapedia), Wikipedia has the longest definition. As well as many links and stuff.

http://www.answers.com/topic/soundbite

Not very interesting; most of the other sources they are taking from are dictionaries or things like dictionaries, and you should expect than an encyclopedia article will generally be longer than a dictionary article.

[Dave1001]

Your pretentious overwriting also gives the illusion of comprehending simple ideas.

I have more belief in the usefulness of wollery's ability to make complex stuff simple than your ability to make simple stuff complex.




To which I respond -- as a sound bite -- "Physician, heal thyself."

I think if there's one thing we can say about Coberst, it's that he is working actively to "heal" himself. He's reading about interesting things, posting his ideas about them here, and responding to the challenges and criticism he receives. It will be interesting to see where Coberst is 1 year from now. He doesn't seem intellectually static to me.

[TriangleMan]

I think if there's one thing we can say about Coberst, it's that he is working actively to "heal" himself. He's reading about interesting things, posting his ideas about them here, and responding to the challenges and criticism he receives. It will be interesting to see where Coberst is 1 year from now. He doesn't seem intellectually static to me.
Why wait, just google 'coberst' to see how he has developed over the last 2-3 years.

[drkitten]

He's reading about interesting things, posting his ideas about them here, and responding to the challenges and criticism he receives.

Obviously, we disagree. I've seen little evidence that he's responding to the challenges and criticism he receives.

In fact, since much of his thread-creation spam is word-for-word and character-for-character identical to threads he has created on other discussion forums, it seems that "responding to the challenges" are the last things on his mind. Otherwise, he's have responded to the challenges and criticisms he'd already received.

[Godmode]

Wikipedia has it's uses. It is NOT the ultimate resource. I find it a good place to check when I want a generic/general definition of something, often there are good links for further reading. Always keep in mind that anyone can contribute to wiki. It can be a good jumping off point, it is never "all you need to know".

[joobz]

This is a response I received that you might find interesting.

I'm a current college student, and any paper that cites Wikipedia as a source automatically gets a failing grade. It's not an appropriate scholarly source, since the articles are anonymous and therefore the author's credentials cannot be verified. For this reason, it doesn't qualify as an authoritative source. It's also edit-able by anyone, as was mentioned uptopic.

I had one prof that said he didn't even want us using it as an idea generator. That said, I often refer to it, but only to get general information. I have other sources. Questia.com is an awesome library. It's not free, but a hundred bucks a year for the kind of research I can do there is well worth it.
I've mentioned this before but as a Prof of ChemE, I've made it known that wikipedia isn't a sole source or a citable source. But as a location for first pass learning, it's great!

I worry about ANY professor that tells you to avoid a source of information. what's the real lesson from that? That's like telling students they shouldn't consult multiple reference texts, only the course text. One of the most important lessons to learn is that no source is infallible. if you can teach a student how to distill ideas and learn for themselves, your job is done. You only really understand a subject if you approached it from different angles and different views.

[Foster Zygote]

What exactly is complex about the idea that many people who have only a passing understanding of a subject think that they have a deep understanding of it?

Too true. In fact, I find that those with the least understanding often have the strongest, most inflexible opinions.

Steven