Amateur Wiki

[N9OGL]

I don't know if this where I should post this, but I've started a Online Amateur Radio Encyclopedia so that amateur's and non-amateurs can look up facts and information regarding amateur radio, technology and electronics. I'm using Wiki which is the same program Wikipedia online encyclopedia is using and I hope amateur's will help by adding their knowledge to this free online reference system so both amateur and non-amateur's can use it as a valuable tool.

Todd Daugherty N9OGL
Amateur Wiki: Amateur Radio Online Encyclopedia
http://12.156.123.39/amateurwiki/index.php/Main_Page

[KC9ECI]

Hampedia (http://hampedia.com/)

Hamwiki.info (http://www.hamwiki.info/)

Another Hampedia (http://www.aade.com/hampedia/hampedia.htm)

The list goes on.

[N5PVL]

This article (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111504A) gives the lowdown on the accuracy and objectivity, that is the quality of information you can expect from the "faith-based" Wiki encyclopedia system.

[al2i]

The original link was defaced or something because it is just a bunch of profanity about hams.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Mar. 26 2006,07:08)]This article (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111504A) gives the lowdown on the accuracy and objectivity, that is the quality of information you can expect from the "faith-based" Wiki encyclopedia system.
The editor of Britannica's propaganda notwithstanding, Wiki has rapidly surpassed Britannica and other traditional sources for accuracy. I knew it would, I am just stunned by the speed at which it happened.

[KF0RT]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Mar. 26 2006,07:08)]This article (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111504A) gives the lowdown on the accuracy and objectivity, that is the quality of information you can expect from the "faith-based" Wiki encyclopedia system.
Quote[/b] ]Robert McHenry is Former Editor in Chief, the Encyclopdia Britannica

No conflict of interest there!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

73, Rob

[WA2ZDY]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 26 2006,10:11)]The original link was defaced or something because it is just a bunch of profanity about hams.
That's K1BOY's staunchest supporter too. Wow, I'm shocked.

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] ]
The original link was defaced or something because it is just a bunch of profanity about hams.

Pretty much par for the course, with the "WIKI" system, which has generated a number of lawsuits in recent years.

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] ]The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.

A funny analogy!

Well, I think the wiki concept is pretty cool, and I have read a great deal of useful information on wiki pages, but I certainly would not quote wiki if I were writing a paper or book.

[WA2ZDY]

But how do you know it was useful? Most folks go to an encyclopedia to learn stuff they don't already know. With a wiki, there's no guarantee the info you're reading is correct. And since so much drivel is posted and not cross checked, it's exceedingly likely the info is NOT correct.

Unless you know for sure the info is correct or the source is good, the data is nearly useless. And that is the problem with a wiki; neither of those provisos is in place.

[al2i]

I see more drivel out of traditional sources, especially on subjects like Alexander Hamilton, who was one of the all-time devils that walked this Earth, but about whom you mostly read bland, useless information from the spoon-feeding of the old ivory tower info-model.

We are culturally assimilating these revolutionary technologies and should be wiser for them in the long run, despite occasional near-term nuttiness. It took quite a while from Gutenberg to the Declaration of Independence, but it was a pre-condition none-the-less.

[n9vo]

Hey guys, let's give ole Todd a break here. He may be on to something. I went to his "wikki" and typed in his good friend K1MAN for a search.....It came up with "see LID". If it's posted, it must be true. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Mar. 26 2006,05:44)]But how do you know it was useful? Most folks go to an encyclopedia to learn stuff they don't already know. With a wiki, there's no guarantee the info you're reading is correct. And since so much drivel is posted and not cross checked, it's exceedingly likely the info is NOT correct.

Unless you know for sure the info is correct or the source is good, the data is nearly useless. And that is the problem with a wiki; neither of those provisos is in place.
The proof is in the pudding. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html)

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Mar. 26 2006,16:44)] The proof is in the pudding. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html)
Quote[/b] ]Wales also plans to introduce a 'stable' version of each entry. Once an article reaches a specific quality threshold it will be tagged as stable. Further edits will be made to a separate 'live' version that would replace the stable version when deemed to be a significant improvement. One method for determining that threshold, where users rate article quality, will be trialled early next year.

Wiki will be the source for Britannica before Britannica is a has-been. We are just learning how to implement the new technologies. Wiki is a modern Incunabulum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incunabulum).

[WA2ZDY]

It can only be stable if someone in the know is checking it. And how will you know who that might be or what his/her qualifications are?

True the same can be said for Britannica but at least they have a mostly fair reputation for accuracy. But if some guy named "Chris Johnson" is the fact checker, how do you know if he has a clue? (I can tell you, he most likely doesn't, depending on the subject.)

I think mediocrity is becoming so accepted in our civilisation anymore that an inaccurate encyclopedia would just fit right in.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Mar. 26 2006,17:56)]I think mediocrity is becoming so accepted in our civilisation anymore that an inaccurate encyclopedia would just fit right in.
Right concept, wrong application. Wiki is an instance in which only excellence is accepted, and the product is amazing for being completely free and not burying you in ads.

You really need to check your premises and find something valid to complain about OM. There is a lot of mediocrity and dishonesty around without attacking one of the most admirable creations and exciting developments of your lifetime...

(Unless you are like me and getting to be grumpy and old-fashioned about a lot of things. For example, I don't even have a cell phone, and if I did, it would be a "big un"!)

[WA2ZDY]

Well yes OM and I am indeed grumpy. But I'm not making a complaint, just bringing up a possibility.

[N5PVL]

AL2I says:
Quote[/b] ]
You really need to check your premises and find something valid to complain about OM. #There is a lot of mediocrity and dishonesty around without attacking one of the most admirable creations and exciting developments of your lifetime...

What a load of crapola! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

ZDY had it right on the button and you know it, OM. The faith-based wikipedia system is not designed for accuracy at all, as witnessed by a number of lawsuits that have come about expressly because of inaccurate information being dessimated in public via the Wiki system.

Pointing out the fact that Wiki is not particularly rational and tends to propagate inaccurate information is not an attack OM - It's a well-known fact.

"One of the most admirable creations and exciting developments of your lifetime" my butt. - Unless you can get all excited about a third-rate deconstructionist substitute for the real thing. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

It's a php script, and not a particularly useful one at that because weak-minded individuals sometimes take it seriously.

[WA9SVD]

Unfortunately, there is no verification process for WiKi type 'Disinformation" databases. Anyone supposedly can add, however wrong or misguided they might be. (Yes, one person can say EchoLink is "God's gift to hams" and another could say it's the "Curse from He** (Heck.)" WiKi is more an assemblage of opinions than a factual reference.
Sorta the forums here, and anywhere in the Internet. It MUST be made known it's not an authoritative, absolute definition of anything.

As an extreme example, "First Amendment" in WiKi style might get yo 10,000 opinions of what it means, but might not even get you a word-for-word quote from the Bill of Rights. So it's a type of forum, just as anywhere on the Internet.

Be that as it may; GO FOR IT! And Good Luck!

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Mar. 27 2006,03:09)]ZDY had it right on the button and you know it, OM. The faith-based wikipedia system is not designed for accuracy at all, as witnessed by a number of lawsuits that have come about expressly because of inaccurate information being dessimated in public via the Wiki system.
What lawsuit(s)?

[N5PVL]

KE4PJW asks:
Quote[/b] ]
What lawsuit(s)?

A quick web-search on "lawsuit wikipedia" produced the following links that refer to a couple of lawsuits, and a class-action lawsuit plus a pedophilia-wikipedia connection.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060119-6013.html

http://digg.com/technology/Wikipedia_Class_Action_Lawsuit

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051204-5682.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news....t_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm)

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archive....ie.html (http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/fake_biographie.html)

http://poeticgeek.net/archive/2005/12/12/wikipedia/

http://zengun.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/wikipedos


The potential for abuse in the Wikipedia system should be pretty obvious to all. It's actually more accurate to say "certainty of abuse" though, rather than mentioning a mere potential, as if it had never happened.

If wikipedia had been put forward as an opinion aggregate instead of a serious source of accurate data ( which it most definately is not ) - then a lot if not all of this confusion and legal action could have been avoided.

Thus it goes with the socialization of knowlege, and the attempt to deconstruct the concept of verity.

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Mar. 27 2006,12:31)]KE4PJW asks:
Quote[/b] ]
What lawsuit(s)?

A quick web-search on "lawsuit wikipedia" produced the following links that refer to a couple of lawsuits, and a class-action lawsuit plus a pedophilia-wikipedia connection.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060119-6013.html

http://digg.com/technology/Wikipedia_Class_Action_Lawsuit

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051204-5682.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news....t_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm)

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archive....ie.html (http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/fake_biographie.html)

http://poeticgeek.net/archive/2005/12/12/wikipedia/

http://zengun.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/wikipedos


The potential for abuse in the Wikipedia system should be pretty obvious to all. It's actually more accurate to say "certainty of abuse" though, rather than mentioning a mere potential, as if it had never happened.

If wikipedia had been put forward as an opinion aggregate instead of a serious source of accurate data ( which it most definately is not ) - then a lot if not all of this confusion and legal action could have been avoided.

Thus it goes with the socialization of knowlege, and the attempt to deconstruct the concept of verity.
Have you researched those links? There is exactly 1 lawsuit that I can find. It is against Wikipedia for revealing the name of a dead computer criminal. (Note, they don't deny it's the truth. They just didn't like the truth being published.)

Class action lawsuit? (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikipedia_class_action_site_vanishes,_backers_reve aled) Nope, it was a hoax.

Pedophiles? (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Story_preparation/Wikipedia_class_action_lawsuit_linked_to_possible_ earthquake_charity_fraud/Wikipedophilia)

[N5PVL]

No, I just grabbed a few representative links out of several pages of such. There was an amazing amount of material to choose from.

If I were going to "research" the Wki-related lawsuits, I would not depend too heavily upon "Wikinews.org" for accurate or objective information about them.

Kind of like going to CBS to get the "real story" about Dan Rather's conduct during the last presidential election, wouldn't you say? # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Which brings us back to the basic problem with a "faith-based" information system. - It's really only credible for "believers". #- GIGO.

I believe I'll stick with legitimate sources of information that incorporate effective checks upon random nonsense and deliberate misinformation being put forward as fact.

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Mar. 27 2006,21:30)]No, I just grabbed a few representative links out of several pages of such. There was an amazing amount of material to choose from.

If I were going to "research" the Wki-related lawsuits, I would not depend too heavily upon "Wikinews.org" for accurate or objective information about them.

Kind of like going to CBS to get the "real story" about Dan Rather's conduct during the last presidential election, wouldn't you say? # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Which brings us back to the basic problem with a "faith-based" information system. - It's really only credible for "believers". #- GIGO.

I believe I'll stick with legitimate sources of information that incorporate effective checks upon random nonsense and deliberate misinformation being put forward as fact.
If I take your advice, and use 'Nature', a well respected news source, Wikipedia is just about as accurate as Britannica.

I searched major news sources and there is no information about any lawsuits or pediophiles related wikipedia.

[N5PVL]

Whatever.

I don't waste too much time arguing religion.

[KF0RT]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Mar. 28 2006,10:39)]Whatever.

I don't waste too much time arguing religion.
I dunno. Your post count on this thread puts you at the top:

Poster Posts
N5PVL 6
al2i 5
WA2ZDY 4
ke4pjw 4
KE5FRF 1
n9vo 1
wa9svd 1
N9OGL 1
KC9ECI 1
KF0RT 1 (make that 2)

73, Rob

[N5PVL]

My point is that once the discussion evolves or devolves to that level, I'm gone.

[AK7V]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Mar. 26 2006,07:08)]This article (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111504A) gives the lowdown on the accuracy and objectivity, that is the quality of information you can expect from the "faith-based" Wiki encyclopedia system.
Geez, that article is almost unreadable. That "editor" needs an editor.

[N5PVL]

If that article challenged you, try this one (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=032806D), which is even more to the point.

KE4PJW said:
Quote[/b] ]
If I take your advice, and use 'Nature', a well respected news source, Wikipedia is just about as accurate as Britannica.

ROTFL ! #Got any other really good ones? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

( Ever heard of Kipling's "Bandar-Log" people? )

[AK7V]

Bob McH of the encyclopedia company isn't a good writer. Doesn't mean his argument is bad, just means that I'm not going to give it much attention. I have a low tolerance for this type of crappy writing.

[KE5FRF]

You know, I find myself agreeing with Charlie more and more often...

but this isn't one of those cases, #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Actually, I will concede a certain point...AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, Wikipedia is a brilliant idea, but a horrible mess in its relative infancy. Give it a few years, it will get better.

SOURCE of IRONY...

Charlie used Google and the internet to refute the validity of an internet encyclopedia, and he didn't even read his articles to actually find one where a lawsuit is being brought on for INACCURACY. Rather the lawsuits are mostly to sue for supposed slander or some other offense that the E. Britannica or Worldbook could just as easily be sued for.

My personal experience with WIKI. I recently contributed a few sentences to an article about Generation X, my generation. I offered no opinions, but rather added some timelines for events, and some memorably and uniquely "80s" trends that Gen Xers grew up with.

The additions I made to the article STOOD for 3 MONTHS without any editing or dispute, and I was pleased about it, until some brilliant yahoo decided to come along and practically rewrite the entire article, deleting 90% of it. Such is the life of a wiki article.

So, As wiki stands today, it is a mess, but it has GREAT POTENTIAL to be as Dave put it a revolutionary source of information. Most people do not add input to a wiki article without some basis of facts or knowledge, and only occasionally do vandals destroy good entries. Most people simply have a little tidbit of knowledge they think might be beneficial to share, and that is that. Give it time, it will get better.

[N9OGL]

The whole idea behind this project is to create a online reference for people who are interest in radio, amateur radio, electronics, and technology. But, this application can be used for a lot more. It can serve as a Bio/QSL information, Information about clubs, Information bulletins/Net Information, Echolink Node information and the list go's on. this does not have to be just a "encyclopedia" there are many thing you can do with application, if you'll use it.

Todd N9OGL:p