• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Feng Shui and Wikipedia

grunion

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Messages
11,496
Though by its very nature it is fraught with misinformation, I have come to look at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) as a fairly objective resource, particularly when it comes to pseudoscience and quackery. It tends to give me faith in the general intelligence of the Internet population when I see sensible, accurate information generally prevail over the agendas of some faction or another. See, for example, their entries on Homeopathy, Alternative Medicine, Dianetics, and Intelligent Design. (My apologies for being unable to provide links as appropriate to these pages as it appears that HTML tags are not functional here.)

Less satisfactory, but still informative, are their entries on Chiropractic and Reflexology. Their entry on Applied Kinesiology looks as if it has been batted around too many times to make much sense anymore. Their entry on Acupuncture is quite bad, written by an apparent True Believer with only the slightest of nods to those who may want to objectively and scientifically consider any of its claims.

But their entry on Feng Shui is packed with outright hokum such as:
"recent discoveries and effective applications have become popular largely because, like many alternative healing practices, they work"
"the rapid modernization of China has led to feng shui becoming a worthy subject for scholarly inquiry at Chinese universities"
"businesses generally use feng shui to increase sales and boost morale"

The article is neither accurate nor objective and is clearly an advertisement to lure the ignorant into throwing money at the scam artists who claim to be tuned into the supernatural and imbued with special powers to determine the best placement of architectural features, furniture, or interior decorating choices.

Unfortunately I neither possess the subject matter expertise nor the writing skills to edit these articles. My attempt to edit the piece would likely consist of my adding the phrase "that is a lie" liberally throughout the article. Is there some sort of skeptical army out there to which we can refer these egregious claims for refutation and correction? I will be glad to participate.
 
I wonder what wikipedia is going to look like in the distant future. Will it represent knowledge and critical thinking, or will it be drowning in pseudoscience, pop culture, and the like?

Is wikipedia a model for our society? Is it a collection of memes that represent our current culture? If it drowns, does that imply that our culture will also?
 
I wonder what wikipedia is going to look like in the distant future. Will it represent knowledge and critical thinking, or will it be drowning in pseudoscience, pop culture, and the like?

Jury is still out on that. My bet is that USENET -- or the Web itself -- provides a good model for what will happen to it.

Back in the day ("when I was your age, we had to walk to school, uphill both ways, through a solid block of ice -- and we liked it"), computers were largely the domain of the technically knowledgeable and highly intelligent, which made it possible to get large amounts of very accurate information on specific subjects very quickly.

Now, of course, it's a vast wasteland of misinformation, as the inmates have gradually taken over the asylum.
 
Now, of course, it's a vast wasteland of misinformation, as the inmates have gradually taken over the asylum.

That's excellent, I'm going to borrow that analogy if I may. I'm always looking for cute ways of demonstrating why Wikipedia, though useful, should not be regarded as the definitive authority on any subject.
 
That's excellent, I'm going to borrow that analogy if I may. I'm always looking for cute ways of demonstrating why Wikipedia, though useful, should not be regarded as the definitive authority on any subject.

Why? It's a just a reworking of the old "oh noes anyone can edit".

Surely the logical thing to do would be to point out wikipedia's disclaimers.
 
I wonder what wikipedia is going to look like in the distant future. Will it represent knowledge and critical thinking, or will it be drowning in pseudoscience, pop culture, and the like?

No

Is wikipedia a model for our society?

No.

Is it a collection of memes that represent our current culture?

No

If it drowns, does that imply that our culture will also?

No
 
Why? It's a just a reworking of the old "oh noes anyone can edit".

Surely the logical thing to do would be to point out wikipedia's disclaimers.

Why not? If I like something, I like it. Why do you care?

You may not realise this, but in the real world, some people respond better to analogies than than the quoting of legal disclaimers. When educating individuals about the dangers of relying on Wikipedia, it's useful to be able to engage them rather than send them to sleep.

But, whatever.
 
Why not? If I like something, I like it. Why do you care?

You may not realise this, but in the real world, some people respond better to analogies than than the quoting of legal disclaimers.

Of course. Why would people bother comitting the appeal to emotion logical fallacy otherwise.

When educating individuals about the dangers of relying on Wikipedia, it's useful to be able to engage them rather than send them to sleep.

You can rely on wikipedia. The reason is that once you reed the disclaimers you relise that wikipedia isn't claiming anything. There are also other very good reasons to read through this disclaimers. It is so pages such as this don't come as a shock:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
 
I've never used Wikipedia. I'm not looking to use it in the near future.

I don't think I'd find it very trustworthy.
 
Wikipedia is a useful tool providing you excercise a little, dare I say it, critical thinking and common sense.

It is not an authority on any subject, merely a collection of articles written by many different people with varying levels of accuracy. Saying Wikipedia is or is not a reliable resource is like saying the Internet is or is not a reliable resource. Each article is only as good as its references and if any article, be it it Wikipedia or the Encyclopedia Brittanica, makes claims without references or citations, it should not be believed without corroborating evidence.

In short, don't believe everything you read no matter where you read it.
 
... it can be hard to argue with articles that have 87 references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Holmes
That depends on the quality of the references and whether they actually support what the article says. Here, for example, is a case in which a report with over 120 references was successfully argued against (scroll down to the section about Dr. Donegan's evidence at paragraph 37).
From the judgement in the appeal:
The judge concluded that the medical evidence relied on by the two mothers to show that vaccination is dangerous and unnecessary was untenable. Dr Donegan's report was based on no independent research, and most of the published papers cited by her in support of her views turned out either to support the contrary position or at least to give no support to her own. Not to mince words, the court below was presented with junk science.
 

Back
Top Bottom