tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3364158.post5222806485241117132..comments2023-10-26T09:46:09.197-04:00Comments on BIRDS ETCETERA: One Problem with Wikipedia—People on the FringeJohn L. Trapphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14001532550767505335noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3364158.post-70544064354893349122008-01-25T20:20:00.000-05:002008-01-25T20:20:00.000-05:00Hey, I'm one of the two editors who wrote the Jean...Hey, I'm one of the two editors who wrote the Jean Keene article. I felt that we had addressed the controversy pretty well, but if you know of any other sources that address her "fringiness" please let me know. I think it's obvious she's hurting the environment, personally. A basic environmental course could tell you that, but if Wikipedia covered only the controversy and not her biography and popularity (even if unfounded), it would make a poor article indeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3364158.post-24887676696358029472007-04-22T09:23:00.000-04:002007-04-22T09:23:00.000-04:00Interesting post, as always, John--a few comments:...Interesting post, as always, John--a few comments:<BR/>-Yes, in Wikipedia, there is an overly large emphasis on recent popular culture. Important people who died before the Internet age (Fuertes and Sutton, for instance), get short shrift. Wikipedia really needs more contributions from book-worms like us, and not just 20-something Internet junkies.<BR/>-As a previous poster said, controversial topics tend to be unreliable, with many from the lunatic fringe contributing. Less controversial topics tend to be pretty reliable.<BR/>-As a teacher, I always have to caution my students about reading any source critically. This is especially true of college textbooks. (When I was a researcher in toxicology and pathology, I quickly learned to ignore just about anything I read in a textbook--it was usually 20 years out of date, even if the book was published recently.) I could go on and on about the serious editorial and factual errors, plus plagiarisms, to be found in the modern corporate-produced, poorly-edited textbook. <BR/>-This is the big advantage of Wikipedia--<I>sometimes</I> errors get flushed out, and there is documentation of the process<BR/>-Please jump right in and work on Sutton and Fuertes. I started the Sutton article, but have not got very far with it. I figured that a short article was better than none. I've read several of his books, but have not got round to integrating stuff into a biographical format. I've not read a biography of him, if one exists, but the note in <I>The Auk</I> I linked to is a good start.<BR/>-I've scanned a lot of Fuertes' art, if you are interested in using it, see <A HREF="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Louis_Agassiz_Fuertes" REL="nofollow">Wikimedia Commons</A>. <BR/>-Some Wikipedia articles I've authored in the natural history area which you might find more complete:<BR/>-<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Lounsberry" REL="nofollow">Alice Lounsberry</A><BR/>-<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauncey_Beadle" REL="nofollow">Chauncey Beadle</A><BR/>-<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Poorwill" REL="nofollow">Common Poorwill</A><BR/>-<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshallia" REL="nofollow">Marshallia</A><BR/>-Others linked <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cotinis" REL="nofollow">here</A><BR/><BR/>I think, too, some of the criticisms of Wikipedia may be due to expectations that every article should be comparable to a printed article in an encyclopedia. It is a different <I>medium</I> than print. I adore David Attenborough's <I>Life of Birds</I> for its stunning imagery, but I don't expect it to substitute for an ornithology text. Wikipedia has many unique advantages as a medium, to wit:<BR/>-very low cost, allowing breadth of coverage--I think you won't find more information about Alice Lounsberry (above) anywhere else, in print or on the Internet<BR/>-breadth of coverage makes Wikipedia a good starting place for many topics<BR/>-ability to add detailed references, something lacking in print encyclopedias and most college textbooks<BR/>-instant accessibility worldwide<BR/>-collaborative authorship--see the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chauncey_Beadle&action=history" REL="nofollow">history</A> of the article on Beadle above--others added valuable, reliable information. Of course, this can be a curse when the topic is controversial, as others will add unreliable, or vandalizing information<BR/>-ability to add color images at virtually zero cost--color is still expensive in print media<BR/>-hyperlinking, an excellent communications tool, when used judiciously--see the "taxoboxes" Wikipedia uses for organisms--very handy<BR/><BR/>As always, I enjoy your thoughts...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3364158.post-31594075454011539282007-04-19T22:24:00.000-04:002007-04-19T22:24:00.000-04:00Yes, Mr. Trapp, as you might have suspected, my co...Yes, Mr. Trapp, as you might have suspected, my comment to Ellen was a rather mild tweak at professorial stuckupiness. I used to warn people about Wikipedia. But now it seems that the reverse is the sentiment. And that amuses me just as much.<BR/><BR/>You can use wikipedia and be amazed at how really competent it can be. Then, sometimes and often on controversial issues, it can be misleading. And as you found, much information has not found someone with the knowledge or the desire to add it.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, I could not resist my one word response to your pointed question. It just was too good a chance to pass up.<BR/><BR/>So you have a nice day, Mr. Trapp. I enjoy your blog. You're not afraid of a few moderated anons. Not bad Mr. Trapp. Not bad.<BR/><BR/>P.S.- are you related to the von Trapps?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3364158.post-90748122083330462822007-04-19T15:49:00.000-04:002007-04-19T15:49:00.000-04:00That's a classic response, anonymous at 3:14 PM!That's a classic response, anonymous at 3:14 PM!John L. Trapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14001532550767505335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3364158.post-49577218553256141962007-04-19T15:14:00.000-04:002007-04-19T15:14:00.000-04:00Could you please cite the source for your statemen...<I>Could you please cite the source for your statement that Wikipedia "is the most cited source in America today"?</I><BR/><BR/>Wikipedia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3364158.post-66664171296210968132007-04-18T15:53:00.000-04:002007-04-18T15:53:00.000-04:00Could you please cite the source for your statemen...Could you please cite the source for your statement that Wikipedia "is the most cited source in America today"?<BR/><BR/>Even if it is, that doesn't mean that the information cited is always accurarate or the most authoritative source of information on a given subject.John L. Trapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14001532550767505335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3364158.post-20230818660922446522007-04-18T15:32:00.000-04:002007-04-18T15:32:00.000-04:00Wikipedia is the most denigrated and at the same ...Wikipedia is the most denigrated and at the same time most cited source in America today. So despite what academics say, all those anonymous sources must be doing something right. If nothing else, they are keeping professors honest.<BR/><BR/>BTW, what ever happened to the Ivory-bill issue? How come no one ever mentions it any more?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3364158.post-80746836737332904712007-04-18T10:58:00.000-04:002007-04-18T10:58:00.000-04:00Excellent advice, Ellen!Excellent advice, Ellen!John L. Trapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14001532550767505335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3364158.post-665041522587679162007-04-18T10:28:00.000-04:002007-04-18T10:28:00.000-04:00I teach in a graduate program in Natural Resources...I teach in a graduate program in Natural Resources. It boggles my mind that we would have to tell students that Wikipedia is neither a scholarly source nor reliable (I don't mean to single out Wikipedia, but unedited, unverified, essentially anonymous writing which of course can be found anywhere but that is mostly found on the internet and in vast quantities). But we do have to tell them that. <BR/><BR/>It also boggles my mind that someone managed to find your thoughtful post to be an excuse for raising the issue of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. I am so sick of the people who are obsessed with this issue (on BOTH sides). Go birding.Ellenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16320710653907288106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3364158.post-33243368411858412592007-04-16T18:02:00.000-04:002007-04-16T18:02:00.000-04:00You date yourself. Fuertes and Sutton are only le...You date yourself. Fuertes and Sutton are only left to be remembered by a few. A new generation has emerged.<BR/><BR/>They draw, paint, consult psychics, and see Ivory Bills. <BR/><BR/>It's post-modernism, Mr. Trapp. We are going to have to learn to live with it until the new age of reason rises.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3364158.post-44083557083226549032007-04-16T11:20:00.000-04:002007-04-16T11:20:00.000-04:00Artists get a special pass, Mr. Trapp. They are d...Artists get a special pass, Mr. Trapp. They are different from you and I.<BR/><BR/>As for the eagle lady, yes it's as bad as those darn cat feeders. Or almost as worse as those darn idiots that don't clean the house sparrows out of their martin houses.<BR/><BR/>For you PETA types out there, you may email me at goflipyourself@notgointoreadit.eduAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com