|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: They Might Be Giants -- Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6811 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Figured I'd start one. Must commend randman on the choice of Meganthropus Wassn't expecting that. I don't know if Nuggins is aware however, the reference randman cited is an outdated article form the wiki.
A more recent article Meganthropus - Wikipedia states:
quote: I would urge both parties to find more refrence as it seems this one is in dispute. (AdminBen) AbE: Misspellings in message bodies are one thing, but in the title, it needs to be changed. Changed penut->peanut. This message has been edited by AdminBen, Sunday, 2005/12/18 07:16 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4308 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
I`d take anything connected with Rex with an ounce of caution. While he mightn`t be the Aussie Ron Wyatt, some of his claims are pretty far out.
http://www.internetezy.com.au/...ous_Australia_Homepage.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1720 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
what, randman relying on wikipedia??? lol.
The only credible source I could find on this classification is from AAAS Science Magazine:Just a moment... which had this tid-bit at the end: The uses of the genera Pithecanthropus and Meganthropus for some of the Javanese hominids are still widely used by many Indonesians (including our Indonesian co-authors on the 1994 paper) as well as other anthropologists worldwide. While the names Pithecanthropus and Meganthropus were discussed in the 1994 report (5), it stated that these names are considered by most workers to be part of the Homo erectus hypodigm.
Nothing about size differences. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 299 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Nuggin asked about the guy that did the reconstruction, Grover Krantz is a cryptozoologist. He has also go Sasquatch footprints to his name.
Take from that what you will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1658 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
what, randman relying on wikipedia??? lol. quote: i guess the moral of the story is that encyclopedias aren't all that accurate in book form either -- the GOOD thing about wikipedia is that it's almost evolutionary in nature. if something is wrong and someone knows better it gets changed much faster than the book form would. this of course can also work against it, but hopefully not very often. the problem is, you see, randman was NOT relying on wikipedia. he was relying on answers.com, which plaigarizes wikipedia on a regular basis -- but doesn't have the ease of change and correct of wikipedia. you'll find that the text randman used, though from wikipedia, is no longer in the actual wikipedia article. compare:
quote: quote: quote: This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-18-2005 08:44 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Damouse Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: |
I'm inclined to agree that Wikipedia might have some errors because of it's user creation, but again, its evolutionary self-correcting. Meganthropus helps Evolution quite a bit. Instead of a missing link, its a diverted link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1658 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I'm inclined to agree that Wikipedia might have some errors because of it's user creation, but again, its evolutionary self-correcting. all encyclopedias are prone to errors and outdated information, it's just a fact of being human. this little bit is quite an example of how wikipedia corrected itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1720 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I am aware of this and the Nature article, and was thinking of using it the next time he criticised my usage of it.
I just loved how it was so prone to errors when it disagreed with what he said, and then he goes and uses it. The power of real time corrections is not to be under-rated, as long as there is a program to monitor changes and look for patterns of abuse (spam articles). What they may want to do is develop a stability meter on changes to articles so people can judge how solid the information is that is presented. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1658 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The power of real time corrections is not to be under-rated, as long as there is a program to monitor changes and look for patterns of abuse (spam articles). well, i think it's self-enforcing. the real-time corrections have a tendency to weed the bad stuff out. i think they do also have some programs that will automatically flag certain things, which then get put in a pile to be checked. i personally tested this a while back. i got into a debate with contracycle once about the validity of using wikipedia over scholarly opinion. so i put up an article on him that of course would have broken forums rules. i think it lasted 2 hours.
What they may want to do is develop a stability meter on changes to articles so people can judge how solid the information is that is presented. a good idea.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025