<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fact and Fiction and Wikipedia</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=306" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306</link>
	<description>The point is not to interpret the world but to change it.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:58:42 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Aish Wary Blogs &#187; Fact and Fiction and Wikipedia</title>
		<link>http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306&#038;cpage=1#comment-478</link>
		<dc:creator>Aish Wary Blogs &#187; Fact and Fiction and Wikipedia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 05:50:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306#comment-478</guid>
		<description>[...] Vicki A. Davis wrote an interesting post today onHere&#8217;s a quick excerptI was having fun at the expense of Conservapedia (the link does actually work now) in my post Fact, Fiction and Fun - but Joe Nutt, of RM, has come back to me with a salutary experience in relation to Wikipedia. &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Vicki A. Davis wrote an interesting post today onHere&#8217;s a quick excerptI was having fun at the expense of Conservapedia (the link does actually work now) in my post Fact, Fiction and Fun &#8211; but Joe Nutt, of RM, has come back to me with a salutary experience in relation to Wikipedia. &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Infidel</title>
		<link>http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306&#038;cpage=1#comment-477</link>
		<dc:creator>Infidel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:20:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306#comment-477</guid>
		<description>If surgery was like Wikipedia: Surgipedia.

Several surgipedians have gathered in an operation theater. On the table lies an unconscious man whos left leg looks dark. Surgipedian #1 grabs a sheet prepared by the patient&#039;s doctor that details the problem.

Surgipedian #1: &quot;Whoa, he&#039;s been lying here for 26 hours, we sure got a backlog again. It also says on this that he has a &#039;claudication&#039; and a &#039;chronic venous insufficiency&#039; in the left leg&quot;, looks at right leg, &quot;and we are asked to do a &#039;leg segmental arterial doppler ultrasound exam&#039;. Whatever that is. His leg looks pretty good to me&quot;.

Surgipedian #2: &quot;You looked at the wrong leg. It says the left one&quot;.

Surgipedian #1: &quot;I looked at the left and it&#039;s looking totally normal!&quot;

Surgipedian #2: &quot;The left from his point of view! Do you know where your left leg is?&quot;

Surgipedian #3: &quot;No need for shouting, #2, please remember Surgipedia guideline &#039;Assume Good Faith&#039;. #1 was just trying to be constructive!&quot;

Surgipedian #2: &quot;I was only trying to be constructive, too!&quot;

Surgipedian #3: &quot;Well, let&#039;s just get to back to this guy.&quot;

Surgipedian #1, feeling securely at the helm again: &quot;I remember something I read once on a website about heart diseases; when your arms or legs turn dark, you got a heart problem&quot;.

Surgipedian #3: &quot;Yup, you are right. It&#039;s something about the veins in the heart being clogged up.&quot;

Surgipedian #2, feeling outdone: &quot;I think it&#039;s something about having not enough oxygen in your blood!&quot;

Surgipedian #1: &quot;Can you cite a source for that?&quot;

Surgipedian #2: &quot;My aunt Thelma had something like that and I wrote a paper about it for my biology class at school!&quot;

Surgipedian #3: &quot;Please remember Surgipedia guideline: No Original Research! Let&#039;s get back to the man&#039;s heart problem! What should we do?&quot;

Surgipedian #1: &quot;I think you need to cut open his ribs and give him a heart massage or clean the veins or something&quot;.

Surgipedian #3: &quot;Sounds reasonable. After all, when you get a massage to your back, the blood there flows better as well. I just wrote an article about it&quot;.

Surgipedian #2: &quot;Heh, that is original research, too!&quot;

Surgipedian #3: &quot;Several surgipedians agreed on that article to be correct. Are you trying to be a nuisance or do you want to do that man some good?&quot;

Surgipedian #2: &quot;Of course!&quot;

Surgipedian #3: &quot;Then please stay constructive! How do we cut the man&#039;s ribs?&quot;

Surgipedian #1: &quot;You need a saw or something.&quot;

Surgipedian #3: &quot;A saw? Surgeons use scalpels when they operate. I think you just need to cut a hole and poke your fingers through&quot;.

Without further ado, he grabs a scalpel and cuts a hole approximately where the heart is and sticks two fingers through.

Surgipedian #3: &quot;I can&#039;t reach the heart, my fingers are not long enough!&quot;

Surgipedian #2: &quot;Then do that thing with the veins!&quot;

Surgipedian #3: &quot;How do you do that?&quot;

Surgipedian #2  &quot;Well, my aunt Thelma finally had something they call a bypass and they cut open the veins, I think&quot;.

Surgipedian #3: &quot;But that is orig..., well let&#039;s try it. But I will have to push in the scalpel pretty deep to reach the heart. Shall we do it?&quot;

Surgipedian #1, #2: &quot;Support&quot;.

Surgipedian #3 remembers Surgipedia guideline &quot;Be Bold!&quot;, grabs the scalpel in his fist and swings his arm in preparation of a deep push into the hole, but at that moment a surgeon comes by.

Surgeon: &quot;Stop! What in the world are you doing?&quot;

Surgipedian #3: The man has a problem in his leg and we are going to cut his heart veins open&quot;.

Surgeon: &quot;What? All I see is a man with vascular problem in his leg and another that wields a scalpel like a knife. Are you aware that pushing a scalpel into someone&#039;s heart will kill that person?&quot;

Surgipedian #1: &quot;We have decided by majority that this is the proper thing to do. Besides, can you prove that pushing a scalpel into someones heart is deadly?&quot;

Surgeon: &quot;You decided by MAJORITY? Are you all nuts?&quot;

Surgipedian #2 feels that there is finally someone besides him to put down: &quot;Please, no personal attacks!&quot;

Surgeon: &quot;I will fucking personal attack you if you endanger someones life!&quot;

Surgipedian #3: &quot;We need to call an admin!&quot;

Surgeon: &quot;Alright, do that, but put that scalpel down!&quot;

An admin comes by.

Admin: &quot;I have heard that a guest is violating Surgipedia rules&quot;.

Surgeon: &quot;I am a surgeon and these people are about to kill this man by pushing a scalpel into his heart!&quot;

Admin: &quot;Reviewing the archived discussion, you are in violation of rules Surgipedia: Assume Good Faith, Surgipedia: Vandalism, Surgipedia: Neutral Point of View, Surgipedia: No Personal Attacks, Surgipedia: Avoid Weasel Words and Surgipedia: Do not disrupt Surgipedia to make a point. You will be blocked from accessing Surgipedia for one week. Please use the time to review Surgipedia guidelines and rules&quot;.

Admin and desperate Surgeon leave.

Surgipedian #3: &quot;Okay, where were we?&quot;
s
Surgipedian #2: &quot;You were about to cut his heart.&quot;

Surgipedian #3: &quot;Yup. I propose that so-called &#039;surgeon&#039; was just a troll and we should go ahead.&quot;

Surgipedian #1 and #2: &quot;Agree&quot;.

Surgipedian #3 slams the scalpel into the man&#039;s heart, who is dead within moments.

Surgipedian #3: &quot;Why did he die?&quot;

Surgipedian #1: &quot;It&#039;s his fault. There was nothing WE did wrong!&quot;

[All guidelines and policies mentioned in this satire do exist in Wikipedia.]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If surgery was like Wikipedia: Surgipedia.</p>
<p>Several surgipedians have gathered in an operation theater. On the table lies an unconscious man whos left leg looks dark. Surgipedian #1 grabs a sheet prepared by the patient&#8217;s doctor that details the problem.</p>
<p>Surgipedian #1: &#8220;Whoa, he&#8217;s been lying here for 26 hours, we sure got a backlog again. It also says on this that he has a &#8216;claudication&#8217; and a &#8216;chronic venous insufficiency&#8217; in the left leg&#8221;, looks at right leg, &#8220;and we are asked to do a &#8216;leg segmental arterial doppler ultrasound exam&#8217;. Whatever that is. His leg looks pretty good to me&#8221;.</p>
<p>Surgipedian #2: &#8220;You looked at the wrong leg. It says the left one&#8221;.</p>
<p>Surgipedian #1: &#8220;I looked at the left and it&#8217;s looking totally normal!&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #2: &#8220;The left from his point of view! Do you know where your left leg is?&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3: &#8220;No need for shouting, #2, please remember Surgipedia guideline &#8216;Assume Good Faith&#8217;. #1 was just trying to be constructive!&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #2: &#8220;I was only trying to be constructive, too!&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3: &#8220;Well, let&#8217;s just get to back to this guy.&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #1, feeling securely at the helm again: &#8220;I remember something I read once on a website about heart diseases; when your arms or legs turn dark, you got a heart problem&#8221;.</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3: &#8220;Yup, you are right. It&#8217;s something about the veins in the heart being clogged up.&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #2, feeling outdone: &#8220;I think it&#8217;s something about having not enough oxygen in your blood!&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #1: &#8220;Can you cite a source for that?&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #2: &#8220;My aunt Thelma had something like that and I wrote a paper about it for my biology class at school!&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3: &#8220;Please remember Surgipedia guideline: No Original Research! Let&#8217;s get back to the man&#8217;s heart problem! What should we do?&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #1: &#8220;I think you need to cut open his ribs and give him a heart massage or clean the veins or something&#8221;.</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3: &#8220;Sounds reasonable. After all, when you get a massage to your back, the blood there flows better as well. I just wrote an article about it&#8221;.</p>
<p>Surgipedian #2: &#8220;Heh, that is original research, too!&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3: &#8220;Several surgipedians agreed on that article to be correct. Are you trying to be a nuisance or do you want to do that man some good?&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #2: &#8220;Of course!&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3: &#8220;Then please stay constructive! How do we cut the man&#8217;s ribs?&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #1: &#8220;You need a saw or something.&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3: &#8220;A saw? Surgeons use scalpels when they operate. I think you just need to cut a hole and poke your fingers through&#8221;.</p>
<p>Without further ado, he grabs a scalpel and cuts a hole approximately where the heart is and sticks two fingers through.</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3: &#8220;I can&#8217;t reach the heart, my fingers are not long enough!&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #2: &#8220;Then do that thing with the veins!&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3: &#8220;How do you do that?&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #2  &#8220;Well, my aunt Thelma finally had something they call a bypass and they cut open the veins, I think&#8221;.</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3: &#8220;But that is orig&#8230;, well let&#8217;s try it. But I will have to push in the scalpel pretty deep to reach the heart. Shall we do it?&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #1, #2: &#8220;Support&#8221;.</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3 remembers Surgipedia guideline &#8220;Be Bold!&#8221;, grabs the scalpel in his fist and swings his arm in preparation of a deep push into the hole, but at that moment a surgeon comes by.</p>
<p>Surgeon: &#8220;Stop! What in the world are you doing?&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3: The man has a problem in his leg and we are going to cut his heart veins open&#8221;.</p>
<p>Surgeon: &#8220;What? All I see is a man with vascular problem in his leg and another that wields a scalpel like a knife. Are you aware that pushing a scalpel into someone&#8217;s heart will kill that person?&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #1: &#8220;We have decided by majority that this is the proper thing to do. Besides, can you prove that pushing a scalpel into someones heart is deadly?&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgeon: &#8220;You decided by MAJORITY? Are you all nuts?&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #2 feels that there is finally someone besides him to put down: &#8220;Please, no personal attacks!&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgeon: &#8220;I will fucking personal attack you if you endanger someones life!&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3: &#8220;We need to call an admin!&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgeon: &#8220;Alright, do that, but put that scalpel down!&#8221;</p>
<p>An admin comes by.</p>
<p>Admin: &#8220;I have heard that a guest is violating Surgipedia rules&#8221;.</p>
<p>Surgeon: &#8220;I am a surgeon and these people are about to kill this man by pushing a scalpel into his heart!&#8221;</p>
<p>Admin: &#8220;Reviewing the archived discussion, you are in violation of rules Surgipedia: Assume Good Faith, Surgipedia: Vandalism, Surgipedia: Neutral Point of View, Surgipedia: No Personal Attacks, Surgipedia: Avoid Weasel Words and Surgipedia: Do not disrupt Surgipedia to make a point. You will be blocked from accessing Surgipedia for one week. Please use the time to review Surgipedia guidelines and rules&#8221;.</p>
<p>Admin and desperate Surgeon leave.</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3: &#8220;Okay, where were we?&#8221;<br />
s<br />
Surgipedian #2: &#8220;You were about to cut his heart.&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3: &#8220;Yup. I propose that so-called &#8217;surgeon&#8217; was just a troll and we should go ahead.&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #1 and #2: &#8220;Agree&#8221;.</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3 slams the scalpel into the man&#8217;s heart, who is dead within moments.</p>
<p>Surgipedian #3: &#8220;Why did he die?&#8221;</p>
<p>Surgipedian #1: &#8220;It&#8217;s his fault. There was nothing WE did wrong!&#8221;</p>
<p>[All guidelines and policies mentioned in this satire do exist in Wikipedia.]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Judgement and Web 2.0 &#171; HeyJude</title>
		<link>http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306&#038;cpage=1#comment-476</link>
		<dc:creator>Judgement and Web 2.0 &#171; HeyJude</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:29:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306#comment-476</guid>
		<description>[...] John Connell, in Fact and Fiction and Wikipedia  shared a &#8216;must read&#8217;, salutory experience with Wikipedia from Joe, an authority on John Donne. This is the real Wikipedia - valuable, and invaluable at the same time! Judgement needed at all times - the kind of &#8216;judgement&#8216; that is nurtured by information professionals. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] John Connell, in Fact and Fiction and Wikipedia  shared a &#8216;must read&#8217;, salutory experience with Wikipedia from Joe, an authority on John Donne. This is the real Wikipedia &#8211; valuable, and invaluable at the same time! Judgement needed at all times &#8211; the kind of &#8216;judgement&#8216; that is nurtured by information professionals. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Nutt</title>
		<link>http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306&#038;cpage=1#comment-475</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Nutt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:06:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306#comment-475</guid>
		<description>John, no objections at all to your replaying my experience. For anyone here who is interested, there was a fascinating discussion between a Wikpedia administrator and a Conservapedia guy on this morning&#039;s Today on radio 4. Reminded me of what John Stuart Mill called, with typical brilliance,  &quot;collective mediocrity.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John, no objections at all to your replaying my experience. For anyone here who is interested, there was a fascinating discussion between a Wikpedia administrator and a Conservapedia guy on this morning&#8217;s Today on radio 4. Reminded me of what John Stuart Mill called, with typical brilliance,  &#8220;collective mediocrity.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gail Dyer</title>
		<link>http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306&#038;cpage=1#comment-474</link>
		<dc:creator>Gail Dyer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306#comment-474</guid>
		<description>Wikipedia as a concept and a tool of co-creation will always have irregularities and inconsistencies by virtue of the role it fulfils. There are experts and there are interested students and there are the vandals. C&#039;est la vie!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wikipedia as a concept and a tool of co-creation will always have irregularities and inconsistencies by virtue of the role it fulfils. There are experts and there are interested students and there are the vandals. C&#8217;est la vie!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Wilson</title>
		<link>http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306&#038;cpage=1#comment-473</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:11:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306#comment-473</guid>
		<description>Historians have reinterpreted History for a lot of years now. As citizens we need to reference a number of sources. Remember Academia&#039;s hands are not clean on this either - there are lots of academic scientific papers out there that on close inspection don&#039;t stand up due to skews in sampling or other slights of hand.
Could it sometimes be related to who has sponsored the research - as a mere mortal I have no idea.
I like the tool in Wikipedia that allows you to compare versions. You should see the things that are said from time to time on SQA&#039;s entry ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Historians have reinterpreted History for a lot of years now. As citizens we need to reference a number of sources. Remember Academia&#8217;s hands are not clean on this either &#8211; there are lots of academic scientific papers out there that on close inspection don&#8217;t stand up due to skews in sampling or other slights of hand.<br />
Could it sometimes be related to who has sponsored the research &#8211; as a mere mortal I have no idea.<br />
I like the tool in Wikipedia that allows you to compare versions. You should see the things that are said from time to time on SQA&#8217;s entry <img src='http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hilery</title>
		<link>http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306&#038;cpage=1#comment-472</link>
		<dc:creator>Hilery</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:55:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306#comment-472</guid>
		<description>Does this mean that knowledge is, after all, an island?!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does this mean that knowledge is, after all, an island?!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ewan McIntosh</title>
		<link>http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306&#038;cpage=1#comment-471</link>
		<dc:creator>Ewan McIntosh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 06:39:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306#comment-471</guid>
		<description>It comes down to cross referencing. There are inaccuracies in many books, too, even if it is just  because they are so out of date. Wikipedia does contain more inaccuracies, some pages being a lot better than others. But we do need to teach kids how to use it through cross-referencing because the site is so pervasive. And, at least when you find inaccuracies you can edit them away. It can&#039;t be done in a book.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It comes down to cross referencing. There are inaccuracies in many books, too, even if it is just  because they are so out of date. Wikipedia does contain more inaccuracies, some pages being a lot better than others. But we do need to teach kids how to use it through cross-referencing because the site is so pervasive. And, at least when you find inaccuracies you can edit them away. It can&#8217;t be done in a book.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tess Watson</title>
		<link>http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306&#038;cpage=1#comment-470</link>
		<dc:creator>Tess Watson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:11:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=306#comment-470</guid>
		<description>Very interesting post John. I am currently working on my Grandfather&#039;s acknowledgment:

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

At present, to the utter dismay of my grandmother, it is very americaised.

The wonderful virtual world that is web 2.0!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very interesting post John. I am currently working on my Grandfather&#8217;s acknowledgment:</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Swann" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Swann</a></p>
<p>At present, to the utter dismay of my grandmother, it is very americaised.</p>
<p>The wonderful virtual world that is web 2.0!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!--f0c25b539901624b460e129d15264305-->