• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Just goes to show...

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

The Kitty case didn't not happen as we think and as reported. It was mostly made up for dramatic purposes by the newspaper that covered it.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:
The Kitty case didn't not happen as we think and as reported. It was mostly made up for dramatic purposes by the newspaper that covered it.
What is the myth and what is the reality? Do you have a credible source to back this up? I grew up in NY and I remember the story. IIRC, many people did witness various parts of the attack (ear-witness or eye-witness), and almost all of them took no action at all.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

eye95 wrote:
Wikipedia is not a good source on any subject that is controversial.
Breaking news:

Breathing is a terrible way to get oxygen into your body!

Owning guns will turn you into a fat, wife-beating, drunken, redneck with no teeth!

The Moon is made of Cheese!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Well, it isn't. Anyone can sign up and edit an article. Advocacy groups have folks who keep eyes on some pages, making edits that favor their cause or removing edits that are unfavorable.

It's not a good source for information on controversial topics.

BTW, nice rational post.

Moving on.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

eye95 wrote:
Well, it isn't. Anyone can sign up and edit an article. Advocacy groups have folks who keep eyes on some pages, making edits that favor their cause or removing edits that are unfavorable.

It's not a good source for information on controversial topics.

BTW, nice rational post.

Moving on.
Yes, and both sides do it, and there are moderators there too.

My post wasn't intended to be rational, it was intended to mimic it's target in both irrationality and child-like silliness.
 

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
Well, it isn't. Anyone can sign up and edit an article. Advocacy groups have folks who keep eyes on some pages, making edits that favor their cause or removing edits that are unfavorable.

It's not a good source for information on controversial topics.
I would have thought you would like wikipedia. Do you know that you can go in and put in tags to show that you don't think a 'fact' is properly cited? Not only do I use wikipedia for information, I often check the sources that they cite on the bottom of the page. Even better resources on controversial topics are the :talk pages, and the edit history.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

mcdonalk wrote:
eye95 wrote:
Well, it isn't. Anyone can sign up and edit an article. Advocacy groups have folks who keep eyes on some pages, making edits that favor their cause or removing edits that are unfavorable.

It's not a good source for information on controversial topics.
I would have thought you would like wikipedia. Do you know that you can go in and put in tags to show that you don't think a 'fact' is properly cited? Not only do I use wikipedia for information, I often check the sources that they cite on the bottom of the page. Even better resources on controversial topics are the :talk pages, and the edit history.
I love wikipedia. When one needs to look up a non-controversial fact, it should be the first place to go on the Internet. As a teacher, I used it all the time in the classroom. (I had a setup that allowed me to flash the contents of a web page on the board for all to see virtually instantly.)

For anything controversial, I'd never use it as a primary source. It's a great meta-source. The links and references at the end of the article are, for the most part, credible sources. But, wikipedia itself is a volatile and unreliable place to find information on subjects in dispute.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

eye95 wrote:
mcdonalk wrote:
eye95 wrote:
Well, it isn't. Anyone can sign up and edit an article. Advocacy groups have folks who keep eyes on some pages, making edits that favor their cause or removing edits that are unfavorable.

It's not a good source for information on controversial topics.
I would have thought you would like wikipedia. Do you know that you can go in and put in tags to show that you don't think a 'fact' is properly cited? Not only do I use wikipedia for information, I often check the sources that they cite on the bottom of the page. Even better resources on controversial topics are the :talk pages, and the edit history.
I love wikipedia. When one needs to look up a non-controversial fact, it should be the first place to go on the Internet. As a teacher, I used it all the time in the classroom. (I had a setup that allowed me to flash the contents of a web page on the board for all to see virtually instantly.)

For anything controversial, I'd never use it as a primary source. It's a great meta-source. The links and references at the end of the article are, for the most part, credible sources. But, wikipedia itself is a volatile and unreliable place to find information on subjects in dispute.
I believe the point is that it does eventually wash out. Even 'in print' sources are not credible on controversial subjects. Wikipedia can adapt the to 'emerging truth,' where books and other forms of print 'information' propagandize for all time.

It is the 'controversial' aspect that leads to misinformation and worse, not the manner in which it is presented.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

The Kitty case was studied by Steven D. Levitt and Stephan J. Dubner. There wasmany errors in the original newspaper story.

Too lengthy and I don't have the ability to put it succinctly. But the even the prosecutor had a hard time finding witnesses to this crime.
 
Top