May 14th, 2006


Previous Entry Next Entry
09:52 pm - on Wørds and Wisdom... (and a little about Women at the end)

(80 comments | Leave a comment)

 
on Wørds and Wisdom... (and a little about Women at the end) - graffiti.maverick

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile


Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

Wrestling
> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

Other
> 1KWFFH
> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr

Comments:


[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: May 15th, 2006 - 11:01 pm (Link)
I like Wikipedia and am certainly willing to accept it as a source. The information on Wikipedia is certainly more accurate than the information on some random website created by someone like me. Moreover, it is more up to date than whatever encyclopedia is in our school library (quite possibly the World Book because we are only the quasi-hood).

As for the dubious accuracy, I have to disagree, because 1) as you said, dateless wankers change it back and 2) archived versions are kept on the site. One day I was looking up "Cinderella" on Wikipedia, as I was planning a unit of instruction. The link totally went somewhere non-Cinderelly. So I just accessed the previous version of the page. Granted I'm not wiki-wise enough to change it back (I've had two dates this year; I simply haven't had the time!) but I got the information I needed. While I don't expect 7th graders to know how to find the previous version of a page, I would hope college students could figure it out.

Finally, Wikipedia contains links to other sites, which might be acceptable to someone who requires a static representation of knowledge in our fast-changing world.

Mostly though, I just let my ADD run wild on Wikipedia. I think it might make an interesting lesson, to see which links students followed if I started them all at the same place. Then again, I would have to check if *certain* pages were filtered out.
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: May 15th, 2006 - 11:29 pm (Link)

and then i thought on it some more

Wikipedia is acceptable to those who accept the postmodern nature of knowledge, that there is no 'one truth' which is out there and can be known. Wikipedia recognizes that knowledge is socially constructed and that the common perception of reality becomes reality.

There, that ought to piss someone off.
[User Picture]From: max1975 Date: May 16th, 2006 - 12:04 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

Dammit, are you trying to make me not like wikipedia?
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: May 16th, 2006 - 12:16 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

Oh the contrary. I'm explaining why you like it.
[User Picture]From: max1975 Date: May 16th, 2006 - 12:30 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

Hmph. Maybe here needs to be a wikipedia entry about me, wherein my distaste for postmodernism is made clear.

I also hate pineapples.
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: May 16th, 2006 - 12:55 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

You're gonna have to explain that. I find that people who don't like pineapples usually don't understand them fully. Ditto on the postmodernism.
[User Picture]From: max1975 Date: May 16th, 2006 - 01:22 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

What's to understand? They touch my taste buds, and I cringe, have an extremely unpleasant sensation in my mouth, and don't want to taste them anymore.

As for postmodernism, it leaves the very idea of a full understanding impossible, which is why I have little use for it. I have waded through vast amounts of gibberish to come to this conclusion. Feel free to attempt to persuade me otherwise (though this might not be the best forum).
From: marmal8 Date: May 16th, 2006 - 01:25 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: max1975 Date: May 16th, 2006 - 03:18 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: marmal8 Date: May 16th, 2006 - 08:23 pm (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: max1975 Date: May 16th, 2006 - 11:46 pm (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: chrismaverick Date: May 16th, 2006 - 06:28 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: marmal8 Date: May 16th, 2006 - 08:09 pm (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

[User Picture]From: max1975 Date: May 16th, 2006 - 12:38 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

Wikipedia recognizes that knowledge is socially constructed and that the common perception of reality becomes reality.

I think I'd be okay with this if it went: "Wikipedia recognizes that knowledge is socially constructed and therefore often wrong, because people are morons."
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: May 16th, 2006 - 12:55 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

But that's the wonder of it! Wikipedia is socially constructed, and it isn't wrong. Or if it is, it isn't wrong for very long.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: May 16th, 2006 - 06:25 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

see, I'm with Katherine here (I think). Socially constructed knowledge isn't wrong. It simply is. I'll grant you that there are some solid facts about the universe. The earth revolves around the sun, for instance. But those facts are pretty useless in day to day life. The fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west (an optical illusion, but one share and considered a given by most of the human race) is a far more useful piece of knowedge.
[User Picture]From: max1975 Date: May 16th, 2006 - 06:45 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

I didn't say it's necessarily wrong, just that it often is.

Hmm. Could give an elaborate response, but I think I'm really in need of sleep. Maybe tomorrow.
[User Picture]From: max1975 Date: May 16th, 2006 - 02:35 pm (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

So the sun rising in the east and setting in the west is perfectly true for its frame of reference. But it's not consensus reality that makes it so. There is an actual Thing and it behaves in a certain Way and does so regardless of what ideas society constructs. The socially constructed reality is a reflection of the real reality, not the other way around.

For example, if you took a poll in 65,000,000 B.C., and asked the question, "Are there rocks floating around in the sky that might one day smash into the ground, killing you and your entire family and wiping out 90% of the species on earth and making way for those little ugly furry things to dominate the world?" People would think you were nuts. But the asteroid hits anyway.

So I don't disagree that the social constructs are often right (or close enough anyway) or that they're often more useful. But Katherine's formulation says socially constructed knowledge "becomes reality" and it doesn't.
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: May 16th, 2006 - 08:17 pm (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

It depends on what you mean by reality. To hijack your example, in 65,000,000 B.C., the commonly known version of reality was, "No there are not rocks floating around in the sky that might one day smash into the ground, killing you and your entire family and wiping out 90% of the species on earth and making way for those little ugly furry things to dominate the world." People believed this to be so. The best authority at the time said it was so, and it was reality. Okay, fine, they were wrong, but now they're all dead, and never got the change to know that they were wrong.

Since The Facts As We Know Them™ are constantly changing with new discoveries, we are only as good as our last update. For a while it was reality that the sun revolved around the earth. Anyone could see that. It was reality. Then some dude came along and said it wasn't so, and everyone got in a tizzy about it. But now we accept that as reality. Reality is a group hallucination. A convincing one that our "science" seems to "prove" - but it's a science we designed within the confines of that which we believe to be reality.
From: max1975 Date: May 16th, 2006 - 11:35 pm (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: marmal8 Date: May 17th, 2006 - 12:06 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: chrismaverick Date: May 17th, 2006 - 12:50 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: max1975 Date: May 17th, 2006 - 01:27 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: marmal8 Date: May 17th, 2006 - 01:51 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: max1975 Date: May 17th, 2006 - 02:46 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: marmal8 Date: May 17th, 2006 - 08:42 pm (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: max1975 Date: May 17th, 2006 - 09:00 pm (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: marmal8 Date: May 17th, 2006 - 09:39 pm (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: max1975 Date: May 17th, 2006 - 10:23 pm (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: marmal8 Date: May 17th, 2006 - 11:21 pm (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: max1975 Date: May 18th, 2006 - 03:41 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: chrismaverick Date: May 17th, 2006 - 12:47 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: max1975 Date: May 17th, 2006 - 01:32 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: chrismaverick Date: May 17th, 2006 - 01:52 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

From: max1975 Date: May 17th, 2006 - 02:56 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: May 16th, 2006 - 06:21 am (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

doesn't piss me off. Consensus reality is more important than fact. That was my hypothesis in the first place.
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: May 16th, 2006 - 08:07 pm (Link)

Re: and then i thought on it some more

Yay! I have a pomo ally!
 

• Go to Top
LiveJournal.com