Comments on: Do You Know Who’s Writing Wikipedia? http://dcplive.dekalblibrary.org/2007/09/27/do-you-know-whos-writing-wikipedia/ Engage. Explore. Discover. Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:18:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Captain Blog-ini http://dcplive.dekalblibrary.org/2007/09/27/do-you-know-whos-writing-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-98 Captain Blog-ini Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:18:38 +0000 http://168.12.85.27/beta/dcplive/2007/09/27/do-you-know-whos-writing-wikipedia/#comment-98 Indeed, I concur. Please list sites where you can look up reliable information for research general info, maybe wikipedia is more like a search engine than an encyclopedia. I have read some interesting things on it this year, for instance with the Coca Cola Company, however like my mum says, you've got to 1. Consider the Source (which is the problem actually :-) ) and 2. Take everything with a grain of salt. (even with "relaible" or well-respected sources of info like...the AP (joking :-) or a White-House Press Aid (REALLY joking now :-), all information, is subject to correction. You know like the entire, if-take-five-witnesses-to-one-accident-you'll-have-five-differing-accounts -of-that-one-accident scenario. Or even in everyday scenarios, where everybody views every thing through the lense of his/her own eye in which you not only have differing camera angles i.e. different perspectives like the aforementioned accident scenario, but you also have different camera men (or women) peeping through the lense's viewfinder. So therefore, for ONE story or situation, you can have an infinite amount of movies being filmed, creating information that prompts each camera man (or woman) to periodically think, "are we talking about the same thing?" "did I just see the same thing that you saw?" (Just imagine any conversation betwixt ANY man and ANY woman--VASTLY differing lenses, VASTLY differing camera people, and according to a one John Gray, VASTLY different planets, too! :-) Final thought of the day: A wise man once said to his son, "Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear." (P.S. I can't half remember, but that may have been a wise mother to her daughter--I can't remember the source) :-) Indeed, I concur. Please list sites where you can look up reliable information for research general info, maybe wikipedia is more like a search engine than an encyclopedia. I have read some interesting things on it this year, for instance with the Coca Cola Company, however like my mum says, you’ve got to 1. Consider the Source (which is the problem actually :-) )
and 2. Take everything with a grain of salt. (even with “relaible” or well-respected sources of info like…the AP (joking :-) or a White-House Press Aid (REALLY joking now :-) , all information, is subject to correction. You know like the entire, if-take-five-witnesses-to-one-accident-you’ll-have-five-differing-accounts -of-that-one-accident scenario. Or even in everyday scenarios, where everybody views every thing through the lense of his/her own eye in which you not only have differing camera angles i.e. different perspectives like the aforementioned accident scenario, but you also have different camera men (or women) peeping through the lense’s viewfinder. So therefore, for ONE story or situation, you can have an infinite amount of movies being filmed, creating information that prompts each camera man (or woman) to periodically think, “are we talking about the same thing?” “did I just see the same thing that you saw?”

(Just imagine any conversation betwixt ANY man and ANY woman–VASTLY differing lenses, VASTLY differing camera people, and according to a one John Gray, VASTLY different planets, too! :-)

Final thought of the day:
A wise man once said to his son, “Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear.” (P.S. I can’t half remember, but that may have been a wise mother to her daughter–I can’t remember the source) :-)

]]>