Subversiv syslöjd rides again!

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"vanmier" vanmier AT peoplepc DOT com wrote in message
...
Mary,

Spud guns used compressed air much like a air pistol. Here is a link to
wikipedia that you may want to check out.

I don't like Wiki ...

Why not?

Hey. I'm a teacher. I love Wikidpedia. For one thing, were you aware that it
is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica on major things, and almost as
accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica on minor ones?

.....and that since the time of the study that found this, the errors that
Wikepedia had have been fixed, but the ones in the Encyclopedia Britannica
have not?

Mind you, I don't allow my students to actually CITE Wikipedia, but then I
don't allow them to cite the Encyclopedia Britannica, either. But...Wiki is
a pretty darned good place to start research. It doesn't take very long to
confirm or deny accuracy; you just check out the quoted sources.

But I do know what a spud gun is, we always had them during the war.

My husband and his brothers had one when they were younger...and I
believe the county sherriff was called out to the house just to give them
a polite "Please stop doing that" talk. *LOL*

We never shot at people, we were so innocent ...

Oh, well...even my sons avoided shooting at PEOPLE. Indeed, even though they
AIMED at the neighbor's cat, they knew good and well that they weren't going
to HIT it. ;-)

Hi Mary,

I'm not surprised - a lot of spam filters filter out subject lines with that
and similar male prescription names. And I suspect such filters can go
through the content of an email and filter email which has the same words
too.

I wonder if this one will go through to the list...

david


On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Mary Fisher wrote:

I sent a mail to a friend about my husband's prostatectomy and the
consequences. It was stopped because 'the contents were offensive'.
Apparently it was the word 'Cialis' (prescribed by our family doctor) which
might have offended my friend.

It didn't.

Mary




--
Delete my first name to email me.

David R. Sky
http://www.shellworld.net/~davidsky/

"Diana" wrote in message
news:T3L6j.4846$3s1.913@trnddc06...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"vanmier" vanmier AT peoplepc DOT com wrote in message
...
Mary,

Spud guns used compressed air much like a air pistol. Here is a link to
wikipedia that you may want to check out.

I don't like Wiki ...

Why not? See below.

Hey. I'm a teacher. I love Wikidpedia. For one thing, were you aware that
it is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica on major things, and
almost as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica on minor ones?

Well, in whose judgement?

I don't use EB either...

....and that since the time of the study that found this, the errors that
Wikepedia had have been fixed, but the ones in the Encyclopedia Britannica
have not?

It's the fixing which I distrust.


....

We never shot at people, we were so innocent ...

Oh, well...even my sons avoided shooting at PEOPLE. Indeed, even though
they AIMED at the neighbor's cat, they knew good and well that they
weren't going to HIT it. ;-)

Cats are good at avoiding such things, not quite as good as rabbits though
:-)

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Diana" wrote in message
news:T3L6j.4846$3s1.913@trnddc06...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"vanmier" vanmier AT peoplepc DOT com wrote in message
...
Mary,

Spud guns used compressed air much like a air pistol. Here is a link
to wikipedia that you may want to check out.

I don't like Wiki ...

Why not? See below.

Hey. I'm a teacher. I love Wikidpedia. For one thing, were you aware that
it is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica on major things, and
almost as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica on minor ones?

Well, in whose judgement?

A study done by the peer-reviewed journal 'Nature." They compared the two by
taking articles from both and sending them to a group of experts in their
various fields. They got 42 reviews back, and in them, they found 8 major
errors, four from each source, and while Wiki had 162 minor errors, the EB
had 123.

There is a truism in computer programming that goes something like 'many
eyes smooth bugs' or something like that...the idea is that Wiki is
constantly being updated by folks who know what they are talking about. If
someone comes in and fiddles with an article so that it is inaccurate, then
the folks who DO know what they are talking about come BACK in and fix it.
That seems to be the way it actually works. As I mentioned earlier, those
major errors that Nature found? Wiki has fixed those. EB hasn't. The Wiki
contributors aren't quite as worried about spell-checking, it seems, though.


I don't use EB either...

....and that since the time of the study that found this, the errors that
Wikepedia had have been fixed, but the ones in the Encyclopedia
Britannica have not?

It's the fixing which I distrust.

Which would you rather have, an error set in stone that can never be
repaired, or a system that can, and is, constantly monitored by those who
are interested (i.e., the experts) so that errors are quickly caught and
fixed?

The thing is, you just hit one of my hot buttons. ;-) The knee jerk
reaction to Wikipedia seems to be "oh, it can't possibly be trustworthy
because..."

When the fact is, it is as trustworthy as any other encyclopedia out there,
and FAR more extensive. For instance, if you want to find out about the
Antelope Valley Poppy Festival, do you think you would find it in the
Encyclopedia Britanica?

Not a chance.

But you'll find out all about it in Wikipedia.

.....but I'm sure that only people in the Antelope Valley care spit diddley
about the Poppy Festival (well, those and also tourists who come out to see
literally miles of California poppies covering the ground, anyway..)
....but...what about something that might be of more interest to a student
looking something up for school? A linguist, perhaps? Try looking "Zaparos"
up in the Encyclopedia Britanica.

Nuttin.

But Wikipedia will tell you all about it; it's a language spoken by a very
few Ecuadorian natives who are struggling to keep their culture and speech
alive.

OK, I'm sorry....this is so completely off topic...but you really did hit a
hot button there. ;-)

We never shot at people, we were so innocent ...

Oh, well...even my sons avoided shooting at PEOPLE. Indeed, even though
they AIMED at the neighbor's cat, they knew good and well that they
weren't going to HIT it. ;-)

Cats are good at avoiding such things, not quite as good as rabbits though
:-)

(grin) you sound like you've had some experience with this.

"Diana" wrote in message
news:XmS6j.5658$581.4177@trnddc04...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Diana" wrote in message
news:T3L6j.4846$3s1.913@trnddc06...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"vanmier" vanmier AT peoplepc DOT com wrote in message
...
Mary,

Spud guns used compressed air much like a air pistol. Here is a link
to wikipedia that you may want to check out.

I don't like Wiki ...

Why not? See below.

Hey. I'm a teacher. I love Wikidpedia. For one thing, were you aware
that it is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica on major things,
and almost as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica on minor ones?

Well, in whose judgement?

A study done by the peer-reviewed journal 'Nature." They compared the two
by taking articles from both and sending them to a group of experts in
their various fields. They got 42 reviews back, and in them, they found 8
major errors, four from each source, and while Wiki had 162 minor errors,
the EB had 123.

So?


There is a truism in computer programming that goes something like 'many
eyes smooth bugs' or something like that...the idea is that Wiki is
constantly being updated by folks who know what they are talking about.

And those who don't.

If someone comes in and fiddles with an article so that it is inaccurate,
then the folks who DO know what they are talking about come BACK in and fix
it. That seems to be the way it actually works. As I mentioned earlier,
those major errors that Nature found? Wiki has fixed those. EB hasn't. The
Wiki contributors aren't quite as worried about spell-checking, it seems,
though.

But not all those who judge know everything.



Which would you rather have, an error set in stone that can never be
repaired, or a system that can, and is, constantly monitored by those who
are interested (i.e., the experts) so that errors are quickly caught and
fixed?

Not all the fixers are experts.

The thing is, you just hit one of my hot buttons. ;-) The knee jerk
reaction to Wikipedia seems to be "oh, it can't possibly be trustworthy
because..."

Well, whoever mentioned Wiki hit one of my hot buttons :-)

When the fact is, it is as trustworthy as any other encyclopedia out
there, and FAR more extensive. For instance, if you want to find out about
the Antelope Valley Poppy Festival, do you think you would find it in the
Encyclopedia Britanica?

No idea.

I wanted to know about something and looked on Wiki and it was wrong.


....

OK, I'm sorry....this is so completely off topic...but you really did hit
a hot button there. ;-)

"DING!"

Repetition.

A reference to a popular British game.

Look it up.

We never shot at people, we were so innocent ...

Oh, well...even my sons avoided shooting at PEOPLE. Indeed, even though
they AIMED at the neighbor's cat, they knew good and well that they
weren't going to HIT it. ;-)

Cats are good at avoiding such things, not quite as good as rabbits
though :-)

(grin) you sound like you've had some experience with this.

Well, yes. But not with a spud gun, I admit. With a longbow.

They hear the whisper of the string as the arrow is loosed.

The extreme experience is when we were once - well, it doesn't matter where
(look up Two Sisters' Lawn), when were four experienced bowmen stood round a
rabbit, each about a yard from it. They all loosed at once and the animal
disappeared. Not long afterwards a row of rabbits appeared on the brow of
the little hill giving two-eared signs to all the humans ...

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Diana" wrote in message
news:XmS6j.5658$581.4177@trnddc04...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Diana" wrote in message
news:T3L6j.4846$3s1.913@trnddc06...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"vanmier" vanmier AT peoplepc DOT com wrote in message
...
Mary,

Spud guns used compressed air much like a air pistol. Here is a link
to wikipedia that you may want to check out.

I don't like Wiki ...

Why not? See below.

Hey. I'm a teacher. I love Wikidpedia. For one thing, were you aware
that it is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica on major things,
and almost as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica on minor ones?

Well, in whose judgement?

A study done by the peer-reviewed journal 'Nature." They compared the two
by taking articles from both and sending them to a group of experts in
their various fields. They got 42 reviews back, and in them, they found 8
major errors, four from each source, and while Wiki had 162 minor errors,
the EB had 123.

So?

So, this proves that Wikipedia is as trustworthy as the Encyclopedia
Britanica..and while you might not like EB either, it certainly proves that
Wikepedia is a pretty good deal; certainly worth more than an instant
dismissal simply because it IS Wikipedia. Besides, unlike the EB (to which I
subscribe, heaven alone knows why...) Wiki is free.


There is a truism in computer programming that goes something like 'many
eyes smooth bugs' or something like that...the idea is that Wiki is
constantly being updated by folks who know what they are talking about.

And those who don't.

But 'those who don't' seem to have had almost no impression upon the overall
accuracy of Wikipedia.

If someone comes in and fiddles with an article so that it is inaccurate,
then the folks who DO know what they are talking about come BACK in and
fix it. That seems to be the way it actually works. As I mentioned
earlier, those major errors that Nature found? Wiki has fixed those. EB
hasn't. The Wiki contributors aren't quite as worried about
spell-checking, it seems, though.

But not all those who judge know everything.

I would trust the expertise of, say, a geologist to make certain that an
entry on geology is accurate. Wouldn't you?



Which would you rather have, an error set in stone that can never be
repaired, or a system that can, and is, constantly monitored by those who
are interested (i.e., the experts) so that errors are quickly caught and
fixed?

Not all the fixers are experts.

Eventually, yes. They are. The funny thing about Wikipedia is that the true
experts in their fields tend to take a proprietary interest in what
Wikipedia has to SAY about them. So they take care of things. As well, Wales
has recently instituted a process whereby an entry, if it seems to have been
'hijacked' by stupid people, will be referred to recognized experts and
frozen.

The thing is, you just hit one of my hot buttons. ;-) The knee jerk
reaction to Wikipedia seems to be "oh, it can't possibly be trustworthy
because..."

Well, whoever mentioned Wiki hit one of my hot buttons :-)

When the fact is, it is as trustworthy as any other encyclopedia out
there, and FAR more extensive. For instance, if you want to find out
about the Antelope Valley Poppy Festival, do you think you would find it
in the Encyclopedia Britanica?

No idea.

I wanted to know about something and looked on Wiki and it was wrong.

What did you look up? ...

And if it was incorrect, you could have fixed it. That's the beauty of the
thing. We are all responsible for it.

OK, I'm sorry....this is so completely off topic...but you really did hit
a hot button there. ;-)

"DING!"

Repetition.

A reference to a popular British game.

Look it up.

We never shot at people, we were so innocent ...

Oh, well...even my sons avoided shooting at PEOPLE. Indeed, even though
they AIMED at the neighbor's cat, they knew good and well that they
weren't going to HIT it. ;-)

Cats are good at avoiding such things, not quite as good as rabbits
though :-)

(grin) you sound like you've had some experience with this.

Well, yes. But not with a spud gun, I admit. With a longbow.

You use a longbow? I admit, I haven't held a bow in my hands for close onto
forty years, but there was a time when my father and I would hunt with a
bow; my one and only buck was taken with a hunting bow. Not a 'longbow' if
you are talking about what I think you are, but a pulley system type. We
didn't even try for rabbits. ;-)

Like I said, it's been a long time.

They hear the whisper of the string as the arrow is loosed.

The extreme experience is when we were once - well, it doesn't matter
where (look up Two Sisters' Lawn), when were four experienced bowmen stood
round a rabbit, each about a yard from it. They all loosed at once and the
animal disappeared. Not long afterwards a row of rabbits appeared on the
brow of the little hill giving two-eared signs to all the humans ...

Mary

oops. : )

Christy

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...


Well, whoever mentioned Wiki hit one of my hot buttons :-)

"Diana" wrote in message
news:2W_6j.11838$dX.3272@trnddc08...


....


I wanted to know about something and looked on Wiki and it was wrong.

What did you look up? ...

OK. Someone recently died. I entered her name and looked to see what was
said on various obituaries, including Wiki. I was flattered to see that a
picture I took of her in 1989 was being used but surprised to see that it
was attributed to an international organisation. Because of that many other
obits gave the same attribution, including the Times (London) newspaper. I
told them and they apologised and are sending me payment.

And if it was incorrect, you could have fixed it. That's the beauty of the
thing. We are all responsible for it.

I did alter it. I was surprised that there was no assessment of my
authority - this is a great weakness. I have the rights of the picture, I
still have the negative and contact prints.

When I looked a few days later my name had been removed and the original
attribution inserted. I edited it again, I haven't looked since to see
what's happened, my point is that it's too easy to edit and it can be done
with authority or without, mischievously or otherwise. That is a great
weakness.

....

You use a longbow?

Yes, but not often. After my breast cancer surgery I couldn't pull a
respectable poundage so I used a grandson's, which my husband had made for
him when he was about eight. As I regained strength I broke it and more or
less gave up.

I admit, I haven't held a bow in my hands for close onto forty years, but
there was a time when my father and I would hunt with a bow; my one and
only buck was taken with a hunting bow. Not a 'longbow' if you are talking
about what I think you are, but a pulley system type. We didn't even try
for rabbits. ;-)

We don't hunt with bows (hawks are far more efficient for rabbits :-) We
do - I used to do - target shooting, as did my husband. A grand daughter
came to live with us on Friday, I was pleased to see that she loaded a nice
bow and splendid tooled leather arrow bag in the car with her other
belongings. Our arrow bag is a simple linen one. We have bows because we're
involved in historical events - although 100% non-combatant. Modern bows
aren't allowed even if anyone wanted to use one. Agincourt was won quite
nicely thank you using the English longbow!

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Diana" wrote in message
news:2W_6j.11838$dX.3272@trnddc08...


...


I wanted to know about something and looked on Wiki and it was wrong.

What did you look up? ...

OK. Someone recently died. I entered her name and looked to see what was
said on various obituaries, including Wiki. I was flattered to see that a
picture I took of her in 1989 was being used but surprised to see that it
was attributed to an international organisation. Because of that many
other obits gave the same attribution, including the Times (London)
newspaper. I told them and they apologised and are sending me payment.

You told Wiki? Or the Times?

misattribution is an ubiquitous sin; happens all the time to everybody.
....but how neat that you could find that obituary on wiki--I'll bet you that
the EB didn't have it!

And if it was incorrect, you could have fixed it. That's the beauty of
the thing. We are all responsible for it.

I did alter it. I was surprised that there was no assessment of my
authority - this is a great weakness. I have the rights of the picture, I
still have the negative and contact prints.

Well, it works like this: the information was put up. You corrected it. If
you had given them erroneous information in YOUR turn, someone else would
have fixed it, until eventually the right information would 'stick.' Sounds
very sloppy, but it...well...works.

which is why Wikipedia has such a high accuracy rating. Everybody is
responsible.

When I looked a few days later my name had been removed and the original
attribution inserted. I edited it again, I haven't looked since to see
what's happened, my point is that it's too easy to edit and it can be done
with authority or without, mischievously or otherwise. That is a great
weakness.

You need to look again...and let the editors know the problem.

...

You use a longbow?

Yes, but not often. After my breast cancer surgery I couldn't pull a
respectable poundage so I used a grandson's, which my husband had made for
him when he was about eight. As I regained strength I broke it and more or
less gave up.

I admit, I haven't held a bow in my hands for close onto forty years, but
there was a time when my father and I would hunt with a bow; my one and
only buck was taken with a hunting bow. Not a 'longbow' if you are
talking about what I think you are, but a pulley system type. We didn't
even try for rabbits. ;-)

We don't hunt with bows (hawks are far more efficient for rabbits :-) We
do - I used to do - target shooting, as did my husband. A grand daughter
came to live with us on Friday, I was pleased to see that she loaded a
nice bow and splendid tooled leather arrow bag in the car with her other
belongings. Our arrow bag is a simple linen one. We have bows because
we're involved in historical events - although 100% non-combatant. Modern
bows aren't allowed even if anyone wanted to use one. Agincourt was won
quite nicely thank you using the English longbow!

Oh, very cool...and yes, it was. At least one longbow sharpshooter ensured
that one!

"Diana" wrote in message
news:Zgm7j.7383$3s1.5156@trnddc06...


OK. Someone recently died. I entered her name and looked to see what was
said on various obituaries, including Wiki. I was flattered to see that a
picture I took of her in 1989 was being used but surprised to see that it
was attributed to an international organisation. Because of that many
other obits gave the same attribution, including the Times (London)
newspaper. I told them and they apologised and are sending me payment.

You told Wiki? Or the Times?

The Times was the last subject.

misattribution is an ubiquitous sin; happens all the time to everybody.
...but how neat that you could find that obituary on wiki--I'll bet you
that the EB didn't have it!

Are you talking about EB on line?

And if it was incorrect, you could have fixed it. That's the beauty of
the thing. We are all responsible for it.

I did alter it. I was surprised that there was no assessment of my
authority - this is a great weakness. I have the rights of the picture, I
still have the negative and contact prints.

Well, it works like this: the information was put up. You corrected it. If
you had given them erroneous information in YOUR turn, someone else would
have fixed it, until eventually the right information would 'stick.'
Sounds very sloppy, but it...well...works.

It didn't though, because it was changed back to the original error.

which is why Wikipedia has such a high accuracy rating. Everybody is
responsible.

You suggesting that communal responsibility ensures accuracy?

Think about it.

When I looked a few days later my name had been removed and the original
attribution inserted. I edited it again, I haven't looked since to see
what's happened, my point is that it's too easy to edit and it can be
done with authority or without, mischievously or otherwise. That is a
great weakness.

You need to look again...and let the editors know the problem.

It's my word against someone else's. That's communal responsibility :-)

They're not going to ask to see my evidence!

...

You use a longbow?

Yes, but not often. After my breast cancer surgery I couldn't pull a
respectable poundage so I used a grandson's, which my husband had made
for him when he was about eight. As I regained strength I broke it and
more or less gave up.

I admit, I haven't held a bow in my hands for close onto forty years,
but there was a time when my father and I would hunt with a bow; my one
and only buck was taken with a hunting bow. Not a 'longbow' if you are
talking about what I think you are, but a pulley system type. We didn't
even try for rabbits. ;-)

We don't hunt with bows (hawks are far more efficient for rabbits :-) We
do - I used to do - target shooting, as did my husband. A grand daughter
came to live with us on Friday, I was pleased to see that she loaded a
nice bow and splendid tooled leather arrow bag in the car with her other
belongings. Our arrow bag is a simple linen one. We have bows because
we're involved in historical events - although 100% non-combatant. Modern
bows aren't allowed even if anyone wanted to use one. Agincourt was won
quite nicely thank you using the English longbow!

Oh, very cool...and yes, it was. At least one longbow sharpshooter ensured
that one!

It was won by better archers and better bows - and waterproofed strings.
Huzzah!

Mary