tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post115758443537284047..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: Why Bother? Wikipedia knows all!Mark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-49678842538596169232011-04-11T18:20:58.353-04:002011-04-11T18:20:58.353-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Dan Kappesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-53928509600275494662007-08-17T02:55:00.000-04:002007-08-17T02:55:00.000-04:00Fr. Mark, great site, great service to the Church....Fr. Mark, great site, great service to the Church. Thanks for taking the time to build it!<BR/><BR/>Hoping you might add my site to your blog roll? http://sanctifusion.blogspot.com<BR/><BR/>Blessings on you all!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215557199259127287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1157743045180231572006-09-08T15:17:00.000-04:002006-09-08T15:17:00.000-04:00Wikipedia was found to have a high degree of accur...Wikipedia was found to have a high degree of accuracy, at least in its science entries. It compared well to Encyclopedia Britannica.<BR/><BR/>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm<BR/><BR/>I would imagine this is due to the large knowledgeable user-base actively policing it. Not to say that wikipedia cannot contain misinformation, but items such as the example posted should be quickly corrected if the system works as intended.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1157708337238418282006-09-08T05:38:00.000-04:002006-09-08T05:38:00.000-04:00Spankey asked:'Is this why wikipedia is not a reco...Spankey asked:<BR/>'Is this why wikipedia is not a recommended source for my GOE's in January? Hmmm... I'll have to check my other sources. Do you think the readers will allow Preludium and the AAC Weblog in my Bibliography?'<BR/><BR/>When I've taught undergraduate courses, I've always insisted that (with some exceptions), students give 2 print sources for every Internet. I also have done a session in each class about a 'hierarchy of sources' based on markers for their credibility and reliability. <BR/><BR/>Because Wikipedia can change at a moment's notice, and is not necessarily reliable or consistent in its quailty, it's right at the bottom of the list. Academically and intellectually, my sense of Wikipedia is that it's the refuge of the lazy and undiscerning. A student would have to have a LOT of stuff to corroborate anything from Wiki before I would consider it reliable.<BR/><BR/>Go to good sources, and forget this nonsense, spankey.Wendy Dacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05930566197347579717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1157664679397339502006-09-07T17:31:00.000-04:002006-09-07T17:31:00.000-04:00Even the edited (dare I say revisioned?) version s...Even the edited (dare I say revisioned?) version simply assumes that the non-global South meeting will produce some sort of, <BR/>"recognition." It is not clear to me exactly what the author(s) think that will be or what it will achieve. None-the-less, it seems to be what is expected.<BR/><BR/>I monitor David Virtue's pages, attmpting, where possible to interject some moderation into the threads. Of late the cleavages within the self-annointed orthodox have become increasingly evident. So, for instance, some consider +Duncan not orthodox because he accepts women clerics, others (Quincy) disavow the evangelicals. Still others consider anyone who has not left TEC for some sort of "jurisdiction" to be apostate by association. They actually condem +Schofield!<BR/><BR/>The question may well be if the self-proclaimed holy can stand the fact that not only do they disagree with those of us who are bad, sinful, apostate, evil liberals (I think I got that right) but the also don't agree with each other!<BR/><BR/>FWIW<BR/>jimB<BR/>eternally lurking in ChicagoJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1157649463653403482006-09-07T13:17:00.000-04:002006-09-07T13:17:00.000-04:00The page was edited today, which you can see by go...The page was edited today, which you can see by going <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglican_Communion_Network&action=history" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>Again, anybody can post anything they like at Wikipedia, and that includes any one of us here; all you have to do is click the [edit] icon. (After awhile, if this is abused, I suppose they'll shut the page down, though, and allow only registered users to post.) <BR/><BR/>I suspect that's exactly what had happened, in fact: some individual posted that as a gag, or because they wanted to see it in print. As you can see, there's now a notice at the top of the main page that says "Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable."<BR/><BR/>Which is quite often true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1157595497226806082006-09-06T22:18:00.000-04:002006-09-06T22:18:00.000-04:00And I thought that the Nutwork types were to conse...And I thought that the Nutwork types were to conservative to post their sexual fantasies in public view! <BR/><BR/>FWIW<BR/>jimB<BR/>eternally lurking in ChicagoJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1157594035470271402006-09-06T21:53:00.000-04:002006-09-06T21:53:00.000-04:00Is this why wikipedia is not a recommended source ...Is this why wikipedia is not a recommended source for my GOE's in January? Hmmm... I'll have to check my other sources. Do you think the readers will allow Preludium and the AAC Weblog in my Bibliography?spankeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13255755818094635488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1157590881861934922006-09-06T21:01:00.000-04:002006-09-06T21:01:00.000-04:00Anybody can put anything up there that they want t...Anybody can put anything up there that they want to, you know.<BR/><BR/>That means you, too, BTW.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1157589971722414272006-09-06T20:46:00.000-04:002006-09-06T20:46:00.000-04:00Has anybody told Canterbury?Has anybody told Canterbury?SUSAN RUSSELLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01795717638621668638noreply@blogger.com