McGwire Gets Into HoF

[Alkie]

"In the 2007 balloting for the Baseball Hall of Fame, McGwire made it to election to the Hall, receiving 545 of the 545 cast, for 100% of the vote."

 I love wikipedia.

[Holly]

It now reads that "Caquelin" got a 100% vote-in. Huh?

[mihoba]

Quote:
It now reads that "Caquelin" got a 100% vote-in. Huh?

I'm tempted to edit it myself. Scary.

[Phil_in_CS]

the career totals are rather astounding, too:

Quote:

    * Games played 232163125565
    * At bats 51243553122
    * Runs 1635465465
    * Hits 1321321321232
    * Doubles 132152131
    * Triples 500000
    * Home runs 1314541531212
    * Runs batted in 1414
    * Walks 1317
    * Strikeouts 0
    * Stolen bases125356
    * Caught stealing0
    * On base percentage 1.000
    * Slugging percentage 1.000
    * Batting average 1.000

[ValpoCory]

Corrected:

"In the 2007 balloting for the Baseball Hall of Fame, he did not make it into the Hall, failing to receiving the required number votes."

[drew corleone]

I've always wondered why people think it's funny to "vandalize" Wikipedia.

[Andyzipp]

Quote:
I've always wondered why people think it's funny to "vandalize" Wikipedia.

Funny, I've always wondered why people think Wikipedia is anything close to a reliable source of information.

[tophfar]

Quote:

Quote:
I've always wondered why people think it's funny to "vandalize" Wikipedia.

Funny, I've always wondered why people think Wikipedia is anything close to a reliable source of information.

Funny, I've always wondered why people think only one source of information is what you have to limit yourself to.

Wikipedia is no better or worse than any other general knowledge encyclopedia .

the problem lies in the low traffic entries, were any vandalism or other inaccuracies will go unnoticed for a while.  

but the fact that it is self correcting, shows its strength.  the fact that it's self correcting (with malicious intent or with just pure ignorance), shows its weakness.

[Limey]

Quote:
but the fact that it is self correcting, shows its strength.  the fact that it's self correcting (with malicious intent or with just pure ignorance), shows its weakness.

It's the same thing with any type of freedom:  one cannot protect one's liberties by giving them up.

[Andyzipp]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I've always wondered why people think it's funny to "vandalize" Wikipedia.

Funny, I've always wondered why people think Wikipedia is anything close to a reliable source of information.

Funny, I've always wondered why people think only one source of information is what you have to limit yourself to.

Wikipedia is no better or worse than any other general knowledge encyclopedia .

the problem lies in the low traffic entries, were any vandalism or other inaccuracies will go unnoticed for a while.  

but the fact that it is self correcting, shows its strength.  the fact that it's self correcting (with malicious intent or with just pure ignorance), shows its weakness.

Wikipedia is not held to any standard of fact.  It's held to a standard of popular opinion.  It's amusing, but ultimately worthless as a resource for any sort of research.

[subnuclear]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I've always wondered why people think it's funny to "vandalize" Wikipedia.

Funny, I've always wondered why people think Wikipedia is anything close to a reliable source of information.

Funny, I've always wondered why people think only one source of information is what you have to limit yourself to.

Wikipedia is no better or worse than any other general knowledge encyclopedia .

the problem lies in the low traffic entries, were any vandalism or other inaccuracies will go unnoticed for a while.  

but the fact that it is self correcting, shows its strength.  the fact that it's self correcting (with malicious intent or with just pure ignorance), shows its weakness.

Wikipedia is not held to any standard of fact.  It's held to a standard of popular opinion.  It's amusing, but ultimately worthless as a resource for any sort of research.

This is nonsense.  I am a research scientist.  I use wikipedia all the time.   It is useful because it allows me a quick answer that is common knowledge in a subject matter that I am not familiar.

A good example is that I am a physicist currently doing medical research.  I use wikipedia frequently to look up medical terminology that was not part of my education.   I could pick up a 600-page medical reference that is on my desk, but its much faster just to look up on wikipedia since I am usually doing stuff on my computer anyway.  I can't remember it being wrong enough to stop doing this.   Wikipedia also has some nice references.  

If I really wanted to get the facts right, I can go and look up a more serious source (i.e. scientific literature, well-known texts), but its usually not worth the trouble.  

Its not authoritative, but it is useful.

[JimR]

a research scientist using the internet to do his/her research--that is today's Sign of the Apocalypse.

[Nate in IA]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I've always wondered why people think it's funny to "vandalize" Wikipedia.

Funny, I've always wondered why people think Wikipedia is anything close to a reliable source of information.

Funny, I've always wondered why people think only one source of information is what you have to limit yourself to.

Wikipedia is no better or worse than any other general knowledge encyclopedia .

the problem lies in the low traffic entries, were any vandalism or other inaccuracies will go unnoticed for a while.  

but the fact that it is self correcting, shows its strength.  the fact that it's self correcting (with malicious intent or with just pure ignorance), shows its weakness.

Wikipedia is not held to any standard of fact.  It's held to a standard of popular opinion.  It's amusing, but ultimately worthless as a resource for any sort of research.

How's that  buggy-whip business these days?

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I've always wondered why people think it's funny to "vandalize" Wikipedia.

Funny, I've always wondered why people think Wikipedia is anything close to a reliable source of information.

Funny, I've always wondered why people think only one source of information is what you have to limit yourself to.

Wikipedia is no better or worse than any other general knowledge encyclopedia .

the problem lies in the low traffic entries, were any vandalism or other inaccuracies will go unnoticed for a while.  

but the fact that it is self correcting, shows its strength.  the fact that it's self correcting (with malicious intent or with just pure ignorance), shows its weakness.

Wikipedia is not held to any standard of fact.  It's held to a standard of popular opinion.  It's amusing, but ultimately worthless as a resource for any sort of research.

How's that  buggy-whip business these days?

Subnuclear writes "If I really wanted to get the facts right...,"  He's right.  In our Age of Bullshit, good enough is acceptable.  All facts are fungible anyway and it only matters how many people you can get to agree with you.  Not qualified people, just people.   There are a number of courts and universities that do not allow Wikipedia to be quoted as a source.  Doubtless they will slowly yield to the inexorable weight of the tyranny of the masses.

There are a number of issues that should be understood about Wiki websites in general.  The primary issue is the mutability of the information.  In itself this is not an issue.  The Encyclopedia Britannica used to update and change as new facts and theories became known.  The difference is they had a date stamp.  A copyright date told you what the consensus of the experts was at that time.  This is one of the primary issues for the courts regarding these websites.  Another recent development at Wikipedia was the issue of paying people to write entries.  Microsoft recently attempted to pay people to monitor and "correct" any information regarding their company.  This was stopped by the people who run the site.

[Phil_in_CS]

subnuclear's example is a good example of where it is useful - stuff people don't care about. I'm not saying its not important, but wikipedia for anything that's a current issue, political, celebrity, etc is useless.

firefox has plug search engines, for looking up various things like his example. Many are reviewed and not editable by morons with agendas.

[Andyzipp]

Quote:
How's that  buggy-whip business these days?

Fantastic.  Although I can't recall mentioning that I thought encyclopedias were infallible, when you have a reference such as C-Net to back up your assertion, well, I must just be wrong. And these folk must as well.  

The Link

The Link

The Link

The Link

[subnuclear]

Virtually all scientific journals are on the internet.  Huge amounts of primary scientific information is on the internet.   All scientists use the internet all day long to get information.  The World Wide Web was created by scientists to do science.  The last time I stepped into a scientific library was about 8 years ago.  

However, scientists are trained to be skeptical, so we are little better sorting out the good from the bad.  I find Wikipedia accurate enough to use it what I use it for.  I wouldn't use it as a reference in one of my papers or to present at a conference, anymore than I would refer to an expert who I talked to on the phone about something.

[Andyzipp]

Quote:
I wouldn't use it as a reference in one of my papers or to present at a conference, anymore than I would refer to an expert who I talked to on the phone about something.

Which is exactly my point.  But hey, I'm not a scientist, so what do I know.

[pravata]

Quote:
Virtually all scientific journals are on the internet.  Huge amounts of primary scientific information is on the internet.   All scientists use the internet all day long to get information.  The World Wide Web was created by scientists to do science.  The last time I stepped into a scientific library was about 8 years ago.  

However, scientists are trained to be skeptical, so we are little better sorting out the good from the bad.  I find Wikipedia accurate enough to use it what I use it for.  I wouldn't use it as a reference in one of my papers or to present at a conference, anymore than I would refer to an expert who I talked to on the phone about something.

All you're talking about is format.  The process is the same as it was 100 years ago.

[JimR]

who is your employer? i want to show him your comment about how important you think researching authoritative texts is.

you're full of it, and i hope the research you do never impacts anyone i care about.

[subnuclear]

That wasn't your point.  Your point was that it could only be used for amusement.   I argue, that it has use as a handy, free reference for people who need a quick answer. I don't think its intended for anything else.   When I am reading a scientific paper and I come to a term I don't know, 6 times out of 10 there is helpful entry in wikipedia.    That is useful for me.

[Andyzipp]

Quote:
That wasn't your point.  Your point was that it could only be used for amusement.   I argue, that it has use as a handy, free reference for people who need a quick answer. I don't think its intended for anything else.   When I am reading a scientific paper and I come to a term I don't know, 6 times out of 10 there is helpful entry in wikipedia.    That is useful for me.

What I actually said was, "It's amusing, but ultimately worthless as a resource for any sort of research."

So I don't believe I said you couldn't use it.  I implied that you shouldn't use it.

[subnuclear]

My employer is the Henry M. Jackson Foundation.  I am employed to study the effects of radiation therapy.  I do computer simulations of proton beams on the body.  My background is in nuclear physics, so I understand the physics very well (which is why they hired me), but I sometimes have to communicate either through conversation or through literature with physicians who use very different terminology.   If you only think this sort of people should be done by people with Ph.D.s and M.D.s then very little prgress would get done.   My work is very thorougly reviewed by physicians and physicist.  No one has complained about the quality of my work.

You don't think scientific journals are on the internet?   You don't think all scientists use the internet?  I have a lot of respect for authoriative texts.   Its usually in the process of using an authortative text that I need to look something up.  

The internet has journals that go back to the 19th century with search engines.   You can do in seconds what would take you in a day in a library.

[tophfar]

Quote:

Subnuclear writes "If I really wanted to get the facts right...,"  He's right.  In our Age of Bullshit, good enough is acceptable.  All facts are fungible anyway and it only matters how many people you can get to agree with you.  Not qualified people, just people.  

its not a matter of how many people agree with you, but the point of wiki, and any open source project, is that people who know will see, edit, and share the information.  it's the concept of many eyes.  

Quote:
There are a number of courts and universities that do not allow Wikipedia to be quoted as a source.  Doubtless they will slowly yield to the inexorable weight of the tyranny of the masses.

There are a number of issues that should be understood about Wiki websites in general.  The primary issue is the mutability of the information.  In itself this is not an issue.  The Encyclopedia Britannica used to update and change as new facts and theories became known.  The difference is they had a date stamp.  A copyright date told you what the consensus of the experts was at that time.  This is one of the primary issues for the courts regarding these websites.

there are many reasons why wikipedia is disallowed as a citable source, the main one being that it is no more acceptable to cite any general knowledge encyclopedia.  if you turned in a "research" paper with nothing more than the Encyclopedia Britannica as your source, you will fail that paper just as surely.

also, the history revisions of each page are very much publicly viewable, as well as discussion about the changes made to each page, including date and time as well as who did it, and what was changed during that revision.  

Quote:
Another recent development at Wikipedia was the issue of paying people to write entries.  Microsoft recently attempted to pay people to monitor and "correct" any information regarding their company.  This was stopped by the people who run the site.

this indeed is a problem, but like i said before, with strengths come weakness.

the main problem with wikipedia, is that people ascribe to it an ambition and quality that it never had to begin with.  it never sought out to be the one and only repository of all knowledge.  

those who praise it as such are delusional, those who deride for attempting the impossible are misguided.

[subnuclear]

Well, JimR said "the internet".  If he wanted to say "Wikipedia" he should of done so.

[tophfar]

Quote:

What I actually said was, "It's amusing, but ultimately worthless as a resource for any sort of research."

So I don't believe I said you couldn't use it.  I implied that you shouldn't use it.

it's an encyclopedia, no encyclopedia should be used for research so what's your point?

[Andyzipp]

Quote:

Quote:

What I actually said was, "It's amusing, but ultimately worthless as a resource for any sort of research."

So I don't believe I said you couldn't use it.  I implied that you shouldn't use it.

it's an encyclopedia, no encyclopedia should be used for research so what's your point?

That was it.  Or more precisely, "Funny, I've always wondered why people think Wikipedia is anything close to a reliable source of information."

It's as reliable as an encyclopedia...which is to say, not reliable enough.

[tophfar]

Quote:

That was it.  And for the record, I was defining research as more than looking up a word.

That's fine.  But at what point has anyone defended wikipedia as a source for research?  

Your point is that Wikipedia is not good for something that no one has claimed that it's good for?

Good job.

[pravata]

Quote:
Well, JimR said "the internet".  If he wanted to say "Wikipedia" he should of done so.

I wasnt particularly responding to Jim.  Saying that you use the "Internet" to do research is equivalent to saying that you use electricity to do research.  But I understand that you are a serious researcher.  The concept of peer review is not lost on you.  I would be curious what sources you do you and how you find the articles you need.  What type of search functions do you find most useful?

[drew corleone]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I've always wondered why people think it's funny to "vandalize" Wikipedia.

Funny, I've always wondered why people think Wikipedia is anything close to a reliable source of information.

Funny, I've always wondered why people think only one source of information is what you have to limit yourself to.

Wikipedia is no better or worse than any other general knowledge encyclopedia .

the problem lies in the low traffic entries, were any vandalism or other inaccuracies will go unnoticed for a while.  

but the fact that it is self correcting, shows its strength.  the fact that it's self correcting (with malicious intent or with just pure ignorance), shows its weakness.

Wikipedia is not held to any standard of fact.  It's held to a standard of popular opinion.  It's amusing, but ultimately worthless as a resource for any sort of research.

I'll agree with that. But it doesn't mean that Wikipedia is not useful, or that you cannot learn anything from it. If nothing else the collection of links and cititions at the bottom of each entry does often point you toward reliable sources of information.

[subnuclear]

University libraries usually pay a ridiculous amounts of money to pay for on-line subscriptions to journals.   I am lucky enough to be have access to the UPenn On-line Library.        Right now, when I want to look up something I use the search engine of the individual journals particular to my field.  "Medical Physics" is where I spend 60% of my time.  From there I usually just trace citations around the various applied physics and medical journals. There is quite a bit of stuff in the various permutations of "Physics Review"  which is the most widely used set of journals in physics research.  I haven't found a particularly useful meta-search engine for my current research.  

Back when I did nuclear physics research, I mostly used the Los Alamos pre-print archive and the SLAC SPIRES database.    I wish there was an equivalent in my current field.

[subnuclear]

Of course, that's just published research.  A lot of my time is spent getting code/machines to work and then its message forums, phone-calls and e-mails, since people don't bother to publish that stuff.

[pravata]

Quote:
University libraries usually pay a ridiculous amounts of money to pay for on-line subscriptions to journals.   I am lucky enough to be have access to the UPenn On-line Library.        Right now, when I want to look up something I use the search engine of the individual journals particular to my field.  "Medical Physics" is where I spend 60% of my time.  From there I usually just trace citations around the various applied physics and medical journals. There is quite a bit of stuff in the various permutations of "Physics Review"  which is the most widely used set of journals in physics research.  I haven't found a particularly useful meta-search engine for my current research.  

Back when I did nuclear physics research, I mostly used the Los Alamos pre-print archive and the SLAC SPIRES database.    I wish there was an equivalent in my current field.

You're right about the "ridiculous amounts of money".  That used to be subscription costs and facilities.  Libraries are not about storage anymore, the money paid is for access.   You should find a librarian who isnt an idiot, good luck, to show you some subject databases on Dialog.

[HurricaneDavid]

Quote:
the main problem with wikipedia, is that people ascribe to it an ambition and quality that it never had to begin with.  it never sought out to be the one and only repository of all knowledge.  

those who praise it as such are delusional, those who deride for attempting the impossible are misguided.

What amuses me most about Wikipedia is that when news breaks, there's always someone who updates Wiki in a matter of minutes... as if the authors think they earn a badge of honor for being the first to update a page.

When I received the breaking news alert from MSNBC.com that Robert Gates was nominated for Secretary of Defense, I went on Wiki to check out his background.  Someone had ALREADY updated his page to say that he was serving in that position (keep in mind he was only NOMINATED at that point.)

Lots of other pages are obviously plagiarized from other web sites.  I often look up bands to read about their backgrounds, and in many cases their biographies have just been cut and pasted from their own sites.

Obviously content on Wikipedia should be taken with more grains of salt than the average source, but if you're intent on researching via the Web and just want information fast without pop-ups or ads, it's useful.

[Phil_in_CS]

OK everyone, pitchers and catchers report Thursday... the void is almost over....

[drew corleone]

They don't need to after all... Pinwheel already updated Wikipedia to say that the Astros finished 2007 in 3rd Place.

[Ty in Tampa]

 

Quote:
That's fine. But at what point has anyone defended wikipedia as a source for research?

Your point is that Wikipedia is not good for something that no one has claimed that it's good for?

Good job.

You came to the defense of something that didn't need defending?

Good job.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
a research scientist using the internet to do his/her research--that is today's Sign of the Apocalypse.

Do your associates not use the Internet to research statutes, regulations, cases and law journals?

[JimR]

read what he wrote, Arky. "If I really wanted to get the facts right, I can go and look up a more serious source (i.e. scientific literature, well-known texts), but its usually not worth the trouble." that is what i reacted to.


my associates? do you think i do not research?

pravata is right, of course. i do use "the internet" in a broad sense to review statutes and regulations. i do not, however, use online stuff like our "research scientist" does to do legal research. that comes from authoritative sources. i do want the facts (and law) to be correct.

[homer]

Courtesy Matt Drudge (today):

  Vermont college says history students may not cite Wikipedia as a source

 

Quote:
History professor Neil Waters says Wikipedia is an ideal place to start research but an unacceptable way to end it.  

And if you need to fill time until Thursday:

 Wikipedia Founder Introduces Wiki Magazine Sites

[tophfar]

Quote:
read what he wrote, Arky. "If I really wanted to get the facts right, I can go and look up a more serious source (i.e. scientific literature, well-known texts), but its usually not worth the trouble." that is what i reacted to.


my associates? do you think i do not research?

pravata is right, of course. i do use "the internet" in a broad sense to review statutes and regulations. i do not, however, use online stuff like our "research scientist" does to do legal research. that comes from authoritative sources. i do want the facts (and law) to be correct.

im sure lexis-nexis would love to know that they have unathoritative information at their disposal.

you should tell them.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
read what he wrote, Arky. "If I really wanted to get the facts right, I can go and look up a more serious source (i.e. scientific literature, well-known texts), but its usually not worth the trouble." that is what i reacted to.


my associates? do you think i do not research?

pravata is right, of course. i do use "the internet" in a broad sense to review statutes and regulations. i do not, however, use online stuff like our "research scientist" does to do legal research. that comes from authoritative sources. i do want the facts (and law) to be correct.

im sure lexis-nexis would love to know that they have unathoritative information at their disposal.

you should tell them.

See this is where it gets real murky.  Lexis is accessible via the Internet.  It is not on the Internet.  And I have regretted the day we lost our direct connection.  It'd be like saying Pizza Hut is on the Phone.  Anyway, anyone who uses regs or statutes on the web, verify, verify, and verify again, the date last updated.  Especially Texas, what a nightmare.  Also, forget annotations.  As for "researching" case law, not really, you're searching for a case.  Free text searching is mostly just for locating, not really systematic research.

[strosrays]

Quote:
See this is where it gets real murky.  Lexis is accessible via the Internet.  It is not on the Internet.  And I have regretted the day we lost our direct connection.  It'd be like saying Pizza Hut is on the Phone.  Anyway, anyone who uses regs or statutes on the web, verify, verify, and verify again, the date last updated.  Especially Texas, what a nightmare.  Also, forget annotations.  As for "researching" case law, not really, you're searching for a case.  Free text searching is mostly just for locating, not really systematic research.

I have use of a package that includes Texas and the rest of the 5th Circuit, most of the codes, Dorsaneo's, and a few other things.  Anything else, one pays by the pound.  

Useful in its way, but you are correct - as far as researching cases, it is good for finding citations relatively quickly.   One still has to crack the books for the research, to get it right.   Well, I do, anyway.

[JimR]

read pravata's answer to you, but remove your head from your ass first.

[NeilT]

During the legislative session, first thing each morning or last thing each night I go here to see what bills have been filed that day:

The Link

It's a trustworthy source for legislative information, since it is, well, what the legislature uses. I also use it pretty extensively for statutes and the Texas constitution, since generally I know what I'm looking for and where to look.

For the Texas Administrative Code (which I use quite a bit), I always use the Texas Secretary of State's website:

The Link

As I understand it, the Texas Register is the authoritive publication, but I don't go back to it.  I also don't track down the usually out-of-date books, if they're still published.

For IRS publications, I either check my deskbook or go to the IRS website.  Same for SEC stuff, and of course all of us use the MAC now for researching continuing disclosure information on clients.

I don't do much case law research, but I tend to use the internet all the time to review statutes, IRS material, SEC material and administrative rules.  And for legislation.  Every day the legislature is in session.  And then I'll ramble through TASA and TASB and TML and TAC to see their bill analyses.  Mighty handy.  

Now for Wikipedia, I usually go there for descriptions of starlets I've never heard of, and for short biographies of writers I've never read.  On both I've found it trustworthy enough for my purposes.

[tophfar]

Quote:
See this is where it gets real murky.  Lexis is accessible via the Internet.  It is not on the Internet.

you will have to explain as to what you see is the difference here is.

is a newspaper not a newspaper because you can read an online version of it?  if they stopped printing the NY Times and went soley to web based publishing distribution, would that suddenly destroy it's previous credibility?

does the internet have some sort of magical "make everything a lie" property that as soon as something is enclosed in html tags, encoded as a pdf, or accessable via URL in any manner, that it suddenly becomes untrustworthy?

the medium has nothing to do with whether or not the information contained within it is trustworthy or not.  however you access the information does not alter it's veracity.  

there is nothing murky about it.

if it is available on the internet, and you research it on the internet, you are doing "internet research" which apparently somehow kills families.

Quote:
verify, verify, and verify again

this should just be standard operation procedure no matter what kind of research you are doing.

[tophfar]

Quote:
read pravata's answer to you, but remove your head from your ass first.

apparently i like the view from up there.

too scared to answer for yourself?  hiding behind mommies skirt?

[subnuclear]

Quote:
read what he wrote, Arky. "If I really wanted to get the facts right, I can go and look up a more serious source (i.e. scientific literature, well-known texts), but its usually not worth the trouble." that is what i reacted to.

Maybe I should restate this since I do sound like I am saying something much worse than it is.   When writing a scientific document, when making a presentation for my peers, when conducting a discussion with  a fellow scientist, when making decisions concerning an experiment I am obligated to use the best reference material available and that is never, ever Wikipedia.  I absolutely agree with you.  

When reading peer-reviewed journals and I have difficulty understanding a particular word or phrase (like an Acronym or a anatomical term; not a concept or a technique) I find Wikipedia to be as convenient resource that frequently has a clearly-written, well-cited entry that will improve my comprehension of what I'm reading.   Many Wikipedia entries are complete garbage, but I am capable of  pursuing the subject in other sources if I find an entry dubious.  I sometimes use it as a structured search engine for other sources, since many of the entries have rather lengthy reference lists.   I don't think it compromises my work in any way to use it in this manner.

I can't wait till you guys start talking baseball again, so I can shut up and lurk.

[JimR]

ok, understood. i do serious research in my work, too, and i think i understand what you mean.

do not shrink from the baseball talk. it is fun.

and, oh...fuck off, tophfar.

[Craig]

Quote:
I can't wait till you guys start talking baseball again, so I can shut up and lurk.

Well since this started out as a McGwire thread ...

Fuck the Cardinals.

[tophfar]

Quote:
and, oh...fuck off, tophfar.

three pages before a fuck off, jim you're getting soft on us.

happy valentines day to you too.

[JimR]

i know. i'm slowing down in my old age. the only excuse is that i did not see it until late last evening. i responded on 2/13. i would never say that to you on 2/14.

Happy VD backatcha.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
See this is where it gets real murky.  Lexis is accessible via the Internet.  It is not on the Internet.

you will have to explain as to what you see is the difference here is.

is a newspaper not a newspaper because you can read an online version of it?  if they stopped printing the NY Times and went soley to web based publishing distribution, would that suddenly destroy it's previous credibility?

does the internet have some sort of magical "make everything a lie" property that as soon as something is enclosed in html tags, encoded as a pdf, or accessable via URL in any manner, that it suddenly becomes untrustworthy?

the medium has nothing to do with whether or not the information contained within it is trustworthy or not.  however you access the information does not alter it's veracity.  

there is nothing murky about it.

if it is available on the internet, and you research it on the internet, you are doing "internet research" which apparently somehow kills families.

Quote:
verify, verify, and verify again

this should just be standard operation procedure no matter what kind of research you are doing.

You would be surprised. Possibly it is murky because we seem to be using the Web and the Internet interchangeably.  It has nothing to do with trustworthiness.  The connection to Lexis is made via Internet protocols.  The databases are never on the Web, once you're in you're in the Lexis databases.  Lexis and Westlaw were databases 20 years before the Internet became usable.  Dialog, the first free text searchable database, 30 years. (by the way, the Web is not a database and if you're using databases via an arrangement with a library, you arent on the Web either.  Sorry to tell you, you're using the library. ETA, the assumption that you just need the Internet for research has led people to being dead, The Link )

[tophfar]

Quote:
You would be surprised. Possibly it is murky because we seem to be using the Web and the Internet interchangeably.  It has nothing to do with trustworthiness.  The connection to Lexis is made via Internet protocols.  The databases are never on the Web, once you're in you're in the Lexis databases.  Lexis and Westlaw were databases 20 years before the Internet became usable.  Dialog, the first free text searchable database, 30 years. (by the way, the Web is not a database and if you're using databases via an arrangement with a library, you arent on the Web either.  Sorry to tell you, you're using the library. ETA, the assumption that you just need the Internet for research has led people to being dead, The Link )

you are correct in that i do not make a distinction between what has come to be termed the "web" (nothing more than the http protocol) and any other TCP/IP traffic.  

the Internet is the Internet, not matter which application level protocol is being used at the time.  whether that information is available offline or not, if you are using the internet to transmit the information in that database, you are still doing your research online.  that's not going to change just because it's not done using http.

the internet does not create information it just communicates it.  it does not interpret it.  

in regards to your article, the failure was not that they conducted online research, the failure was that they did their research in general badly.

regarding the toxicity of the chemical used:

"According to the OHRP, this information was "readily available via routine MEDLINE and Internet database searches , as well as recent textbooks on pathology of the lung"

just because the researcher was not thorough is not an indictment of the tools used, it's an indictment of his competency.

strengthened by the fact that the investigation also noted that

Quote:
A federal investigation also found that the study was not reviewed at a properly convened meeting and volunteers were not warned of the risks

as well as

Quote:
Togias failed to report the cough, shortness of breath, and decreased lung function experienced by an earlier subject in the study.7 Instead of doing more research on the toxicity of the substance, Togias decided the volunteer had caught a cold.9

as well as

Quote:
the OHRP found that the IRB was failing to properly review research. Most protocols were not individually presented or discussed at convened or properly constituted meetings. Research must be reviewed at a convened meeting including at least one member whose primary concerns are nonscientific areas and where a majority of members are present.

none of which have to do with using the internet at all.

the internet didn't kill the volunteer, gross negligence did.

in the interest of letting the thread die off, this will be my last post, but if you wish to continue discussing, i'll be more than happy to talk over PM.

eta: "assumption that you just need the Internet for research"

no one has made this claim.  the presented argument was that using online research was inherently faulty.  which i still firmly believe is false.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
You would be surprised. Possibly it is murky because we seem to be using the Web and the Internet interchangeably.  It has nothing to do with trustworthiness.  The connection to Lexis is made via Internet protocols.  The databases are never on the Web, once you're in you're in the Lexis databases.  Lexis and Westlaw were databases 20 years before the Internet became usable.  Dialog, the first free text searchable database, 30 years. (by the way, the Web is not a database and if you're using databases via an arrangement with a library, you arent on the Web either.  Sorry to tell you, you're using the library. ETA, the assumption that you just need the Internet for research has led people to being dead, The Link )

you are correct in that i do not make a distinction between what has come to be termed the "web" (nothing more than the http protocol) and any other TCP/IP traffic.  

the Internet is the Internet, not matter which application level protocol is being used at the time.  whether that information is available offline or not, if you are using the internet to transmit the information in that database, you are still doing your research online.  that's not going to change just because it's not done using http.

the internet does not create information it just communicates it.  it does not interpret it.  

in regards to your article, the failure was not that they conducted online research, the failure was that they did their research in general badly.

regarding the toxicity of the chemical used:

"According to the OHRP, this information was "readily available via routine MEDLINE and Internet database searches , as well as recent textbooks on pathology of the lung"

just because the researcher was not thorough is not an indictment of the tools used, it's an indictment of his competency.

strengthened by the fact that the investigation also noted that

Quote:
A federal investigation also found that the study was not reviewed at a properly convened meeting and volunteers were not warned of the risks

as well as

Quote:
Togias failed to report the cough, shortness of breath, and decreased lung function experienced by an earlier subject in the study.7 Instead of doing more research on the toxicity of the substance, Togias decided the volunteer had caught a cold.9

as well as

Quote:
the OHRP found that the IRB was failing to properly review research. Most protocols were not individually presented or discussed at convened or properly constituted meetings. Research must be reviewed at a convened meeting including at least one member whose primary concerns are nonscientific areas and where a majority of members are present.

none of which have to do with using the internet at all.

the internet didn't kill the volunteer, gross negligence did.

in the interest of letting the thread die off, this will be my last post, but if you wish to continue discussing, i'll be more than happy to talk over PM.

eta: "assumption that you just need the Internet for research"

no one has made this claim.  the presented argument was that using online research was inherently faulty.  which i still firmly believe is false.

One more thing, the gross negligence was

"The death of Ms Roche highlights problems with the review of research and the protection of subjects. There is a problem with researchers not bothering to properly research the literature and assuming that everything will be available on the internet. According to Dr Frederick Wolff, a professor emeritus at the George Washington School of Medicine, it was "foolish" and "lazy" that the investigator and the Hopkins review board failed to look up the 1950s medical journal articles warning of lung damage caused by inhaling hexamethonium. "Anyone trained in academic medicine knows how to do this research," he said."

The tools were inadequate.  They used PubMed to do the research.  PubMed, at the time had articles back to 1967.  As stated, the articles that would have detailed exactly what happened to the volunteer were published in the 50's.  There is a set of books called Index Medicus.  This reference does exactly what PubMed does only it goes back to 1880.

[JimR]

what i have observed in young lawyers is that they do not know how to research. they just assume they can find everything with a search engine. if they get stymied, they go ask someone to answer the question for them.

[pravata]

Quote:
what i have observed in young lawyers is that they do not know how to research. they just assume they can find everything with a search engine. if they get stymied, they go ask someone to answer the question for them.

It's how they've been taught since high school.  The good ones go ask someone, the bad ones give up and assume they've done all that is necessary.  I put some of the blame on unreasonable deadlines.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:
a research scientist using the internet to do his/her research--that is today's Sign of the Apocalypse.

You must not know many research scientists.  You can find in 5 minutes what it used to take 5 hours researching.  Most use the internet regularly.

[Bag]

Hmmmmm.... SPLEEN!

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

Quote:
what i have observed in young lawyers is that they do not know how to research. they just assume they can find everything with a search engine. if they get stymied, they go ask someone to answer the question for them.

It's how they've been taught since high school.  The good ones go ask someone, the bad ones give up and assume they've done all that is necessary.  I put some of the blame on unreasonable deadlines.

This applies to the IT industry as well.  From what I've determined, the good ones ask where to find the answer.  The lazy ones simply want the answer.  The lazy also tend to return asking the same question, having learned nothing the first time.

[subnuclear]

That case is quite an eye-opener.   I don't think anything I do could have a result like that, but I will certainly spend some time trying to understand my literature searching tools a bit better!

And for the record, I generally find university librarians to be quite helpful when I take the time to ask them things.

[JimR]

you're in on this a little late, m'boy. i clarified what i meant later on.

[JimR]

hmmm, is Bag a troll? let's see: register today, say something for the sole purpose of causing trouble, then run away like a thief in the night. yep, a troll.

fuck off, little boy. your mommy is calling you.

[Outlawscotty]

Now my day is complete.....finally.

[Limey]

Quote:
History professor Neil Waters says Wikipedia is an ideal place to start research but an unacceptable way to end it.

BINGO!

[pravata]

Quote:
That case is quite an eye-opener.   I don't think anything I do could have a result like that, but I will certainly spend some time trying to understand my literature searching tools a bit better!

And for the record, I generally find university librarians to be quite helpful when I take the time to ask them things.

I use that as an eye opener in my research training presentations.  I can come up with dozens of examples of people who simply looked foolish, lost money, lost their jobs, because they trusted what they found on the Web.  But, it's the first example I've found that someone died specifically because they didn't check their source.  Nobody dies in my profession neither, we just make it seem like somebody could. (authority, purpose, date, completeness, are a few of the things people should check about any source.)

[Bag]

 Look, more SPLEEN!  

[Taras Bulba]

Quote:
Look, more SPLEEN!    

He had a fine tenor voice.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:
you're in on this a little late, m'boy. i clarified what i meant later on.

Yeah, I read that later on.  Lately I feel like I'm in a time warp, 12 hours behind the rest of the world.  Thirty lashes for me for not reading the whole thread before responding.

[JimR]

no prob, pal.

[NeilT]

Jim, you'll be pleased to see that the legal documents from your youth are now online.

The Link

This is actually pretty cool.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Jim, you'll be pleased to see that the legal documents from your youth are now online.

The Link

This is actually pretty cool.

Didn't Jim help compile part of the Domesday Book?

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
Jim, you'll be pleased to see that the legal documents from your youth are now online.

The Link

This is actually pretty cool.

Didn't Jim help compile part of the Domesday Book?

The Link

[The Spleen]

Quote:

Quote:
Look, more SPLEEN!    

He had a fine tenor voice.

Got that James Earl Jones thing going...