Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of therelative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory>3.5GB not used?))

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Bart
> Silverstrim
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 7:06 AM
> To: Paul Schmehl
> Cc: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of therelative
> advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory>3.5GB not used?))
>
>
>
> On Apr 25, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
>
> > --On Wednesday, April 25, 2007 15:29:04 -0400 Thomas Dickey
> > <dickey at radix.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 01:15:03PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >>> No kidding.  That professor should have his Wikipedia account
> >>> banned,
> >>> and the head of his department should be informed of his
> >>> vandalism.  I
> >>> don't suppose you know the name of his Wikipedia account, or his
> >>> legal
> >>> name. . . .
> >>
> >> yawn.  That sort of research has been going on for years.
> >>
> >> Less interesting is the sort of trash emitted by people who don't
> >> like
> >> knowing that whatever they've read on a webpage might not be
> >> completely
> >> accurate, and that they might have to do some of their own thinking.
> >>
> >> regards.
> >
> > At one time I had high hopes that the internet would usher in a new
> > era of increased knowledge and reduced gullibility.  Instead it
> > seems to have simply hastened the arrival to the wrong conclusions.
>
> There are opportunities for increased knowledge.  Gullibility,
> though, is part of our human nature.
>
> How many of you delve four levels deep when looking for a quick
> reference on something that, in the long run, you care little about?

I try to avoid stuff I don't care about.

> If you're not a mechanic or car enthusiast, do you look into anything
> and everything on how a clutch works, or every variation of four
> wheel drive implementations?  Probably not.

Yes, but if your driving a car you should.  There's a lot of stuff people
should be doing these days that they aren't doing.  I guess people's mothers
aren't telling their kids to eat their vegetables anymore.

> We don't devote time and
> resources into being "renaissance people".

Most of us don't.  And the reasons why are complex, but what it essentially
boils down to is that there's a lot of vested interests out there that
don't want the majority of people to be renaissance people and so they
have been on a campaign for many years to discourage it, and a lot of
people are stupid and have fallen for that.

> For me, I look up the
> answer, if it sounds reasonable, I go with it unless someone else
> points out a deficiency in the answer.  I need a quick and dirty
> answer to move on to things I *do* care about.
>

Why do you need a quick and dirty answer for stuff you admittedly don't
care about?

> The problem is that people will accept an answer whether it makes
> sense or not.  We had someone once convinced that a "Laser Car Wash"
> cleaned cars by shooting small lasers at the car to clean it.  It was
> something so far left field of what they're interested in and
> knowledgeable about that they just accepted the answer, even though
> there's no way such a system would be affordable (or safe enough) to
> use as a car washing tool.
>

Damn, there goes those patent plans...

> Then again, there are those that do this intentionally, because
> spreading misinformation is in their best interest and they profit
> from it.  Even schools profit, not necessarily monetarily, by keeping
> students from questioning what they are taught.

Yes, that is true.  But it's important to keep in mind that while
schools profit from this, many teachers don't - and therefore buck
the pressure to churn out unquestioning students.

Ted