New video: History's Worst President

[RiversideGator]

Was not commenting on its accuracy. Just the weird use of "Actually" which has crept into the language as something that is usually (and in this case was) meaningless.

But all seriousness aside,  I thought it was pretty crazy in a funny, weird and pathetic sort of way.

Any how, I have received my first post back from my Chinese affiliates, and I sure hope that those devils haven't tricked me;

You are truly a wordsmith.   

[RiversideGator]

By the way, have you seen this new video about the winner of the 2008 election for president?

http://www.youtube.com/v/aAImJdNUzoc

I wonder what kind of video would be made about either hillary or john being any kind of inspiration to anyone?

I am confused.  Why does one need a politician to look like them in order for them to be encouraged to go to college?  I wonder how much black college attendance has increased in those cities in which blacks are Mayors.  I would bet there is no relationship.

[RiversideGator]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/18/crowd_breaks_obama_record_in_p.html

35 thousand people FOR A PRIMARY RALLY.  In Philadelphia no less.

As a side note.  With a few exceptions over the years, I am consistently surprised by the number of conservatives and neo conservatives who have never read the Advise and Consent series.

I do not think it would be possible to overstate the importance of this body of work to the Republican Revolution and it is the sourcework for almost all of the Conservative mythos one cares to name.

Allen Drury pretty much created the idea of a Liberal Media Bias, and with the first book of the series, "Advise and Consent" having won a Pulitzer, those ideas were transmitted to millions of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advise_and_Consent

also interesting is the real life incident which the storyline of advise and consent is based on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Hunt

The Obama phenomenon is definitely a movement, but it aint an intellectual one.

BTW Stephen, be careful about using wikipedia as a source on here.  Midway does not approve.  Far better to quote an obscure left wing blogger or perhaps a holistic medicine site.   

[RiversideGator]

Actually, I read somewhere that wikipedia was quite accurate.  I need to dig up the source and post it.  And it will be an actual source, not the wikipedia article.   

[RiversideGator]

Here is one article:

Wikipedia survives research test

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.

Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page.

But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.

Open approach

Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English.

It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.

   
We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good

It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles.

In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.

The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.

"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study.

"We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said.

Writing style

Nature said its reviewers found that Wikipedia entries were often poorly structured and confused.

The Encyclopedia Britannica declined to comment directly on the findings; but a spokesman highlighted the quality of the entries on the free resource.

"But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written," Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications is quoted as saying in Nature.

"There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor."

Wikipedia came under fire earlier this month from prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.

The founding editorial director of USA Today attacked a Wikipedia entry that incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of president John F Kennedy and his brother, Robert.

The false information was the work of Tennessean Brian Chase, who said he was trying to trick a co-worker.

Wikipedia has responded to the criticisms by tightening up procedures.

Next month it plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

[RiversideGator]

And another:

Professors Should Embrace Wikipedia

By Mark A. Wilson

When the online, anyone-can-edit Wikipedia appeared in 2001, teachers, especially college professors, were appalled. The Internet was already an apparently limitless source of nonsense for their students to eagerly consume â€" now there was a Web site with the appearance of legitimacy and a dead-easy interface that would complete the seduction until all sense of fact, fiction, myth and propaganda blended into a popular culture of pseudointelligence masking the basest ignorance. An Inside Higher Ed article just last year on Wikipedia use in the academy drew a huge and passionate response, much of it negative.
       
Now the English version of Wikipedia has over 2 million articles, and it has been translated into over 250 languages. It has become so massive that you can type virtually any noun into a search engine and the first link will be to a Wikipedia page. After seven years and this exponential growth, Wikipedia can still be edited by anyone at any time. A generation of students was warned away from this information siren, but we know as professors that it is the first place they go to start a research project, look up an unfamiliar term from lecture, or find something disturbing to ask about during the next lecture. In fact, we learned too that Wikipedia is indeed the most convenient repository of information ever invented, and we go there often â€" if a bit covertly â€" to get a few questions answered. Its accuracy, at least for science articles, is actually as high as the revered Encyclopedia Britannica, as shown by a test published in the journal Nature.

It is time for the academic world to recognize Wikipedia for what it has become: a global library open to anyone with an Internet connection and a pressing curiosity. The vision of its founders, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, has become reality, and the librarians were right: the world has not been the same since. If the Web is the greatest information delivery device ever, and Wikipedia is the largest coherent store of information and ideas, then we as teachers and scholars should have been on this train years ago for the benefit of our students, our professions, and that mystical pool of human knowledge.

What Wikipedia too often lacks is academic authority, or at least the perception of it. Most of its thousands of editors are anonymous, sometimes known only by an IP address or a cryptic username. Every article has a “talk” page for discussions of content, bias, and organization. “Revert” wars can rage out of control as one faction battles another over a few words in an article. Sometimes administrators have to step in and lock a page down until tempers cool and the main protagonists lose interest. The very anonymity of the editors is often the source of the problem: how do we know who has an authoritative grasp of the topic?

That is what academics do best. We can quickly sort out scholarly authority into complex hierarchies with a quick glance at a vita and a sniff at a publication list. We make many mistakes doing this, of course, but at least our debates are supported with citations and a modicum of civility because we are identifiable and we have our reputations to maintain and friends to keep. Maybe this academic culture can be added to the Wild West of Wikipedia to make it more useful for everyone?

I propose that all academics with research specialties, no matter how arcane (and nothing is too obscure for Wikipedia), enroll as identifiable editors of Wikipedia. We then watch over a few wikipages of our choosing, adding to them when appropriate, stepping in to resolve disputes when we know something useful. We can add new articles on topics which should be covered, and argue that others should be removed or combined. This is not to displace anonymous editors, many of whom possess vast amounts of valuable information and innovative ideas, but to add our authority and hard-won knowledge to this growing universal library.

The advantages should be obvious. First, it is another outlet for our scholarship, one that may be more likely to be read than many of our journals. Second, we are directly serving our students by improving the source they go to first for information. Third, by identifying ourselves, we can connect with other scholars and interested parties who stumble across our edits and new articles. Everyone wins.

I have been an open Wikipedia editor now for several months. I have enjoyed it immensely. In my teaching I use a “living syllabus” for each course, which is a kind of academic blog. (For example, see my History of Life course online syllabus.) I connect students through links to outside sources of information. Quite often I refer students to Wikipedia articles that are well-sourced and well written. Wikipages that are not so good are easily fixed with a judicious edit or two, and many pages become more useful with the addition of an image from my collection (all donated to the public domain). Since I am open in my editorial identity, I often get questions from around the world about the topics I find most fascinating. I’ve even made important new connections through my edits to new collaborators and reporters who want more background for a story.

For example, this year I met online a biology professor from Centre College who is interested in the ecology of fish on Great Inagua Island in the Bahamas. He saw my additions and images on that Wikipedia page and had several questions about the island. He invited me to speak at Centre next year about evolution-creation controversies, which is unrelated to the original contact but flowed from our academic conversations. I in turn have been learning much about the island’s living ecology I did not know. I’ve also learned much about the kind of prose that is most effective for a general audience, and I’ve in turn taught some people how to properly reference ideas and information. In short, I’ve expanded my teaching.

Wikipedia as we know it will undoubtedly change in the coming years as all technologies do. By involving ourselves directly and in large numbers now, we can help direct that change into ever more useful ways for our students and the public. This is, after all, our sacred charge as teacher-scholars: to educate when and where we can to the greatest effect.

Mark A. Wilson is a professor of geology at the College of Wooster.

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/04/01/wilson

[RiversideGator]

Some more on wikipedia (links in original only) from Professor Mark Perry's blog (of the University of Michigan at Flint):

In Defense of Wikipedia: I Kinda Like It

Columbia Journalism Review--At the end of the day, Wikipedia looks less like the reputation-munching monster it’s being portrayed as, and more like the future of information in the Internet age.

Professor Mark Goodacre, Duke University--It is becoming fashionable among academics these days to have a go at Wikipedia. This is inevitable for a variety of reasons. Academics are often behind their students in the use of new technology, and this brings about a reaction of fear. We witnessed the same thing with the advent of the World Wide Web in the 1990s and now that fears about the academic value of Internet resources has diminished, a new, narrower target has been found. It is an easy target because its open source basis makes it often apparently "unreliable." Negative reactions to the use of Wikipedia in the classroom, however, are unnecessary and should be discouraged.

Professor Tyler Cowen--Critiques of Wikipedia miss its comparative advantage. Entries tend to be link-rich, and the ongoing debate and revisions refresh and improve the links. Think of Wikipedia as hiring someone to do search engine work for you, not just Google but the other brands as well. They then report back with the best links. Wikipedia brings you this service for free.

Washington Post Blog--Even the most celebrated sources of fact are frequently flawed. A study by the scientific journal Nature investigated the legitimacy of both Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, a widely respected information outlet. Through a random sampling of articles, the study discovered 162 errors from Wikipedia and 123 from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Ultimately, Wikipedia is more than merely a source of information; it is a global system that promotes a constant exchange of information. Its purpose is to encourage a dynamic flow of knowledge, an element that is critical to this era of globalization.


Duke Professor Cathy Davidson--Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia. It is a knowledge community, uniting anonymous readers all over the world who edit and correct grammar, style, interpretations, and facts. It is a community devoted to a common good â€" the life of the intellect. Isn't that what we educators want to model for our students?

As a cultural historian and historian of technology, I find that I often go to Wikipedia for a quick and easy reference before heading into more-scholarly depths. I'm often surprised at how sound and good a first source it is.

Comment: There are a lot of Wikipedia-skeptics out there, especially in academia, where it seems to be almost universally condemned, banned and ridiculed by professors.

Well, at the risk of being an academic heretic, I have a confession to make: I like Wikipedia, and often go there first when trying to find information on the Internet. For example, check out the Wikipedia listing for Gross Domestic Product. In addition to links for original sources of GDP data in many countries, there are many useful ranked lists at the end of the Wikipedia GDP entry, based on GDP using data from the IMF, World Bank and the CIA World Factbook with adjustments for inflation, PPP and per capita, etc. (I refer to these lists often):

List of countries by GDP (nominal), (per capita)
List of countries by GDP (PPP), (per capita), (per hour)
List of countries by GDP (real) growth rate, (per capita)
List of countries by GDP sector composition
List of countries by future GDP estimates (PPP), (per capita), (nominal)
List of countries by past GDP (PPP), (nominal)

Wikipedia is in its infancy, and will likely continue to improve significantly over time. Wikipedia-skeptics, give it some time. It'll likely be the "future of information in the Internet age."

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/04/in-defense-of-wikipedia-i-like-it.html

[Eazy E]

Actually, there are large numbers of conservatives who are dissatisfied with Bush for spending too much, expanding the government, not properly addressing the immigration problem, etc, etc.  It is just that Bush has been the viable lesser of two evils in both of his elections and he had the good fortune to run against two of the biggest elitist buffoons in the Democrat Party - Gore and Kerry.

Okay, wow a few issues where looney-ass far right crazies disagree with him.  How about his VAST and UNPARALLELED expansion of executive power? How about his now proven advancement of torture as a viable method of interrogation? How about his absolute refusal to do anything about corporate corruption? How about his using the armed forces in also unparalleled ways? How about his use of presidential signing statements to subvert the law? How about his actually cutting taxes in a time of war to pander shamelessly to the Grover Norquist idiot crowd? How about his also unparalleled co-mingling of religion and government? How about his use of government departments (we can just start with DOJ) to illegally advance partisan political causes? How about his utter flailure (flailing failure) on New Orleans-- Heckuva a job, Brownie! ideed.

Yes, because on two issues he doesn't go with the extreme morons, he is suddenly "centrist".  C'mon, you're smarter than that, RG, if you were a Gator. It is simply no longer an opinion issue; Bush is far right, and clearly one of the worst president's ever, and probably the worst of the modern era.
Unless you happen to be like my wife's millionaire ex-boss who got a free Lexus SUV and Infinity SUV because of the tax cuts, in which case you think he's the greatest...and in which case you're also a greedy, short-sighted asshole.

[Midway ®]

Crazy E: Bravo.

The only things that are incorrect in your post is the out of place apostrophe, and  that RG is NOT an A@#hole. He is merely a sycophant disciple who is in a position to benefit from the decisions made by the current administration. He deludes himself into believing that what is financially beneficial for him is good for the country, but he is really playing his financial self interest, and because you are morally corrupt and educationally inferior, you are just not capable of understanding the situation. But not to worry, he will bring the truth to you.

The "liberal" agenda seeks to move his cheese. Bad things can happen when you move his cheese.

But anyhows, let's get back onto the discussion of how Wiki is much improved. That's so stimulating and germane to who's the worst president.

IMHO, anyone who uses anything on the Wiki without first vetting it against at least a second source imperils their reputation. 


Stephen:
Theoretical self interest??? You mean he's delusional? 

[Midway ®]

Of course he's confused.  Where and how would he establish a point of reference on an issue like this?

[RiversideGator]

Actually, there are large numbers of conservatives who are dissatisfied with Bush for spending too much, expanding the government, not properly addressing the immigration problem, etc, etc.  It is just that Bush has been the viable lesser of two evils in both of his elections and he had the good fortune to run against two of the biggest elitist buffoons in the Democrat Party - Gore and Kerry.

Okay, wow a few issues where looney-ass far right crazies disagree with him.  How about his VAST and UNPARALLELED expansion of executive power? How about his now proven advancement of torture as a viable method of interrogation? How about his absolute refusal to do anything about corporate corruption? How about his using the armed forces in also unparalleled ways? How about his use of presidential signing statements to subvert the law? How about his actually cutting taxes in a time of war to pander shamelessly to the Grover Norquist idiot crowd? How about his also unparalleled co-mingling of religion and government? How about his use of government departments (we can just start with DOJ) to illegally advance partisan political causes? How about his utter flailure (flailing failure) on New Orleans-- Heckuva a job, Brownie! ideed.

I think some of this would fall under the "etc, etc" in my above post, some of this conservatives actually support and some of this is just nonsense.  And, how about trying to make a point without using an annoying leading question?

Yes, because on two issues he doesn't go with the extreme morons, he is suddenly "centrist". 

Someone who does not agree with you is a "moron" now.  Coming from you, I will take this as a compliment.  I can tell you are a man of deep thought.

C'mon, you're smarter than that, RG, if you were a Gator.

I'm not a real Gator.

It is simply no longer an opinion issue; Bush is far right, and clearly one of the worst president's ever, and probably the worst of the modern era.

Actually, this is entirely an opinion issue.  The results of all of this will be known to future generations of historians, who will also disagree on their meaning.  Trust me on this.

Unless you happen to be like my wife's millionaire ex-boss who got a free Lexus SUV and Infinity SUV because of the tax cuts, in which case you think he's the greatest...and in which case you're also a greedy, short-sighted asshole.

I would never purchase a Lexus or an Infinity (sic).  How nouveau riche. 

[RiversideGator]

Crazy E: Bravo.

Finally you have found your intellectual match.   

The only things that are incorrect in your post is the out of place apostrophe, and  that RG is NOT an A@#hole. He is merely a sycophant disciple who is in a position to benefit from the decisions made by the current administration. He deludes himself into believing that what is financially beneficial for him is good for the country, but he is really playing his financial self interest, and because you are morally corrupt and educationally inferior, you are just not capable of understanding the situation. But not to worry, he will bring the truth to you.

Actually, the Republicans passed legislation which directly affected my area of the law and resulted in me losing a good deal of money over the past few years.  But, I have adapted and overcome this.  And, I never vote based on my self-interest.  I vote based on the best interests of the country.  I suggest you do the same and vote Republican this November.   

But anyhows, let's get back onto the discussion of how Wiki is much improved. That's so stimulating and germane to who's the worst president.

I thought we had agreed that it was Jimmy Carter.

IMHO, anyone who uses anything on the Wiki without first vetting it against at least a second source imperils their reputation. 

Much as does someone who cites holistic learning sites for primary sources.   

[RiversideGator]

Of course he's confused.  Where and how would he establish a point of reference on an issue like this?

You are so hip.

[Driven1]

good grief.

[Midway ®]

Actually, the Republicans passed legislation which directly affected my area of the law and resulted in me losing a good deal of money over the past few years.  But, I have adapted and overcome this.  And, I never vote based on my self-interest.  I vote based on the best interests of the country.  I suggest you do the same and vote Republican this November.

I guess you were practicing constitutional law. Sorry about that. (The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005?) But I bet you just love the reduced capital gains rate.