PDA

View Full Version : Who to belive?



Alloy007P
02-28-2007, 05:39 PM
Im doing some reaserch on Iow Jima and other battles in the philipene sea, and the problem is that when I look on wiki the information there is slightly differnt from other sights and other sights also have differnt information so is wiki the best or would a sight?

BaldieJr
02-28-2007, 05:41 PM
Unless you see something yourself don't believe it.

VW-IceFire
02-28-2007, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Alloy007P:
Im doing some reaserch on Iow Jima and other battles in the philipene sea, and the problem is that when I look on wiki the information there is slightly differnt from other sights and other sights also have differnt information so is wiki the best or would a sight?
Its site...not sight. A site is a place and sight is what you see.

Wikipedia should be used as a general resource for gathering surface information on a variety of subject matters. But its not good for gathering details. The best historical facts, details, and analysis are generally in textbooks which are peer reviewed for accuracy. Failing that there are some really great websites online for all sorts of battles that are probably more accurate. Generally if academics aren't involved then taking the sum total of all resources and finding the most consistent numbers or facts across the board are probably best.

Rattler68
02-28-2007, 05:46 PM
I've never seen Africa, but I believe that it's there...

Akronnick
02-28-2007, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Rattler68:
I've never seen Africa, but I believe that it's there...

You mean it's not a conspiracy of cartographers?

Bremspropeller
02-28-2007, 06:10 PM
No, Africa ain't, Britain is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Chris0382
02-28-2007, 08:27 PM
We are starting to adopt a University policy were I go to school and there is to be no references from wikipedia as anyone can practically submit info without it being referenced.

School text books are not always accurate on an international basis. So ide get literature contributed by the people that were there at the time.

I say get down to you library, get the victory at sea DVDs etc, plenty of documentaries and books on amazon and ebay,

http://www.ereader.com/product/detail/17457?book=The_Battle_for_Iwo_Jima

Viper2005_
02-28-2007, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Chris0382:
We are starting to adopt a University policy were I go to school and there is to be no references from wikipedia as anyone can practically submit info without it being referenced.

School text books are not always accurate on an international basis. So ide get literature contributed by the people that were there at the time.

I say get down to you library, get the victory at sea DVDs etc, plenty of documentaries and books on amazon and ebay,

http://www.ereader.com/product/detail/17457?book=The_Battle_for_Iwo_Jima

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

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html

Personally I would suggest that there is no such thing as truth, just as there is no absolute frame of reference. But given sufficient data quite robust statistical conclusions may be drawn about certain things.

Many people from allegedly educated backgrounds take great pride in discounting any and all information found online. More fool them.

In my experience, the electronic word is no more or less truthful than the written or printed word. The only real way to make a sensible decision as to the difference between fact and fiction is to consider multiple sources and effectively take an average, which ideally should be weighted with regard to vested interests. For example, there's nothing particularly wrong with using these forums as as source of information regarding WWII aircraft performance, providing that you remember that certain users have vested interests in the performance of certain aeroplanes. In fact, some of them post unadulterated B/S. But so what? Plenty of books are full of vested interests and B/S too. IMO the only real difference is that certain academics take great pleasure in being able to look down their noses at electronic sources.

Thankfully, these people are gradually becoming extinct.

Doubtless several thousand years ago similar problems were experienced with academic acceptance of works written on paper instead of for example stone tablets...

ImpStarDuece
02-28-2007, 09:36 PM
The problem with the internet is lack of eternal peer review.

The majority of histories and non-fiction works are usually reviewed several times by external editors, and, as a result, are less likely to have unsubstantiated claims in them than your average website.

That said, internet publishing is quickly becoming much better in this respect. I work for an aviation consultancy that has all its online publications go through editing from at least two editors, before a final review is done by the rest of the consultancy.

WWMaxGunz
03-01-2007, 01:10 AM
Generally a good reference lists all sources taken from print. There should be a trail back
to original records, source names or repeatable demonstrations showing a point.

I have no doubts about many technical references I had or do have.

Well, unless reality is fed in by a wire in some kind of paranoid plot! Aghhhhhh!
Uh-huh, sure, we live in The Matrix. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

F19_Ob
03-01-2007, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Generally a good reference lists all sources taken from print. There should be a trail back
to original records, source names or repeatable demonstrations showing a point.



And what icefire wrote:

"Wikipedia should be used as a general resource for gathering surface information on a variety of subject matters. But its not good for gathering details. The best historical facts, details, and analysis are generally in textbooks which are peer reviewed for accuracy."


Personally I start gathering material by searching my own books and the net first because I get other clues on where and what to search for.
Next follows reading to try to get a broad grip of the subject and lastly trying to confirm accurasy of the texts, wich might even take years.

I think it's important to keep an open mind to that everything one reads may be inaccurate to some degree.
I say this because ones research is only as good as ones research-material.
Sceptisism is healthy.

* Research really never get finished and just continues to evolve and expand all the time.

* Research wich says it's objective should be regarded with suspicion.

The problem with old research is that it might be wrong, and too many refer to old research without re-doing it, usually because of economical- and time- factors.
This unfortunately means that much of the worlds combined research is full of errors and if we refer to others research without doing the job ourselves we will contribute to the errors wich other researchers will take for true, and so on.

This makes research a very unrewarding job for most part because we simply can't test everything ourselves and never can be 100% sure.
In the end it becomes a matter of belief, like religion. What do u belive is true, and that sort of thing.

I don't wan't to spoil the research-spirit but with this in the back of the head one may reach a more relaxed attitude to research and se ones own contribution as 'one' part in a long line of parts and not the final answer.

well a few thoughts

K_Freddie
03-01-2007, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by Rattler68:
I've never seen Africa, but I believe that it's there...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
No.. not there.. it's over here. Believe me - I'm holding it up from down here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yup, Wiki is just general info, some accurate - some not so accurate. If you're an expert on a topic you can have you say here, or correct errors on a topic. But for general info it's an excellent resource.
It does have peer review, but only when it is written here. I think there's probably not enough peer review though.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Dogfighter1969
03-01-2007, 05:02 AM
Freddie,
How low are you?

K_Freddie
03-01-2007, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by Dogfighter1969:
Freddie,
How low are you?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You don't want to know... I'm the lowest of the low. I'm the low-life. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

err... Cape Town actually!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

WWSensei
03-01-2007, 06:10 AM
The problem with Wiki is that anyone can edit pretty much any entry and any time. Imagine a Wiki entry on the P-51, it's capabilities, and it's impact to the war.

Now imagine everyone on this forum getting to edit the entry.

Would you trust the end result? Welcome to wikipedia...

Dogfighter1969
03-01-2007, 07:59 AM
Freddie,
You can only be lower than me if you live in the Southern Suburbs. I am in the Northern Suburbs of Cape Town.
Cheers

WWSpinDry
03-01-2007, 09:23 AM
In the realm of electronic sources, it's easy for any nut with an agenda to post up any amount of hogwash and claim it to be accurate. With published print media, there's a slightly (only slightly) greater chance the information has been vetted to some degree, at least by a publisher. Once you get into the realm of peer-reviewed publications you're starting to see information that's been scrubbed by panels of the closest thing to experts as you're going to get. If the stuff you want to believe hasn't been peer-reviewed before publication, that's a huge red flag: there's probably a good reason it couldn't pass muster in such a review. People want that cachet for their publications, and genarally avoid the process because they have something to hide.

Only primary sources are really of any use when it comes to researching fact. Read a history book about a famous battle, and discover the citations are really to other books which in turn cite other sources further down the chain? If you care about accuracy you need to follow that chain and keep going until you're reading the primary source--the source that everybody else is citing. This is especially true of books detailing aircraft performance--the only way to make sure you're getting the original data is to go to the original source, often NACA papers.

For sources like Wikipedia, their best use is to collect source citations--you are reading an article that cites sources for every fact it states, right? Get an overview of the information, collect the citations, then go out and get those sources and read the information for yourself (not as digested by the wiki article author). If those sources cite earlier ones, then follow the trail to the end.

Research is a time-intensive and often lengthy, tedious process. The lack of willingness to do one's own homework is why so much being written today--especially online--is such utter ****.

K_Freddie
03-01-2007, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Dogfighter1969:
Freddie,
You can only be lower than me if you live in the Southern Suburbs. I am in the Northern Suburbs of Cape Town.
Cheers
Bugger! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif - Melkbosstrand