Comments on: What’s the purpose of simple knowledge? http://lucasmcdonnell.com/whats-the-purpose-of-simple-knowledge/ / knowledge connects people. Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:43:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Lucas McDonnell http://lucasmcdonnell.com/whats-the-purpose-of-simple-knowledge/comment-page-1/#comment-1211 Lucas McDonnell Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:44:38 +0000 http://www.lucasmcdonnell.com/whats-the-purpose-of-simple-knowledge/#comment-1211 That's an interesting point Mersenne. In a sense, Wikipedia does simplify some complex issues that would probably need further clarification in order to be contextualized by a reader. Wikipedia's 'summary effect' is both a pro and a con -- it provides us with the luxury of not having to read up on the topic ourselves, but at the same time, that advantage is also a disadvantage, since we don't do the reading up that we probably should in order to fully understand a topic. That’s an interesting point Mersenne. In a sense, Wikipedia does simplify some complex issues that would probably need further clarification in order to be contextualized by a reader. Wikipedia’s ‘summary effect’ is both a pro and a con — it provides us with the luxury of not having to read up on the topic ourselves, but at the same time, that advantage is also a disadvantage, since we don’t do the reading up that we probably should in order to fully understand a topic.

]]> By: mersenne http://lucasmcdonnell.com/whats-the-purpose-of-simple-knowledge/comment-page-1/#comment-1210 mersenne Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:00:16 +0000 http://www.lucasmcdonnell.com/whats-the-purpose-of-simple-knowledge/#comment-1210 i'm not gonna talk about simple.wikipedia but i read that article you mentioned about "wikipedia against promoting real knowledge" and although i don't agree with the other parts of it, i was thinking that i've not delved deep into some issues and felt content with getting some superficial explanation/definition from wikipedia. for example i may open up a page of max weber and read about his ideas from wikipedia, without going further. but a few weeks ago i saw this mistake and now i'm always telling myself that this is an f'n encyclopedia and it's just general knowledge and that i should read some decent articles (or why not actual books) to get further info. well i'm not really trying to make point here, but seeing this issue brought up, i think wikipedia may in time create a dummification of people, because wikipedia is nearly always the first result on a google search, everyone will be content with the knowledge on there, and some deeper reading will be left to academicians .. that's an interesting an unforeseen sideeffect of a great thing i guess.. thx for the pointers i’m not gonna talk about simple.wikipedia but i read that article you mentioned about “wikipedia against promoting real knowledge” and although i don’t agree with the other parts of it, i was thinking that i’ve not delved deep into some issues and felt content with getting some superficial explanation/definition from wikipedia. for example i may open up a page of max weber and read about his ideas from wikipedia, without going further. but a few weeks ago i saw this mistake and now i’m always telling myself that this is an f’n encyclopedia and it’s just general knowledge and that i should read some decent articles (or why not actual books) to get further info. well i’m not really trying to make point here, but seeing this issue brought up, i think wikipedia may in time create a dummification of people, because wikipedia is nearly always the first result on a google search, everyone will be content with the knowledge on there, and some deeper reading will be left to academicians .. that’s an interesting an unforeseen sideeffect of a great thing i guess..
thx for the pointers

]]> By: Lucas McDonnell http://lucasmcdonnell.com/whats-the-purpose-of-simple-knowledge/comment-page-1/#comment-1208 Lucas McDonnell Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:42:31 +0000 http://www.lucasmcdonnell.com/whats-the-purpose-of-simple-knowledge/#comment-1208 I have to agree with your assessment of the 'electricity' entry. Explaining a term using the term itself is just bad practice. This is why I don't really believe that Simple English Wikipedia is simplifying things -- someone who is confused by the 'simple' definition then has to check regular Wikipedia for the differences between the two definitions. While I understand what the creators of the simple version were trying to accomplish, it just seems largely redundant, and probably could've been incorporated into the regular Wikipedia somehow. I have to agree with your assessment of the ‘electricity’ entry. Explaining a term using the term itself is just bad practice.

This is why I don’t really believe that Simple English Wikipedia is simplifying things — someone who is confused by the ‘simple’ definition then has to check regular Wikipedia for the differences between the two definitions. While I understand what the creators of the simple version were trying to accomplish, it just seems largely redundant, and probably could’ve been incorporated into the regular Wikipedia somehow.

]]> By: Orderer http://lucasmcdonnell.com/whats-the-purpose-of-simple-knowledge/comment-page-1/#comment-1160 Orderer Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:11:18 +0000 http://www.lucasmcdonnell.com/whats-the-purpose-of-simple-knowledge/#comment-1160 I beg to differ. I find the simple wikipedia to be retarded in some cases - an insult to anyone's intelligence. <a href="http://routineorder.com/filed/2007/02/22/wikipedia-for-dunces-simple-wikipedia/" rel="nofollow">Here's what I thought of it when I happened across it</a>. I beg to differ. I find the simple wikipedia to be retarded in some cases – an insult to anyone’s intelligence. Here’s what I thought of it when I happened across it.

]]>