Letters 08-24-2015

Bush And Blame Jeb Bush strikes again. Understand that Bush III represents the nearly extinct, compassionate-conservative, moderate wing of the Republican party...

No More State Theatre I was quite surprised and disgusted by an article I saw in last week’s edition. On pages 18 and 19 was an article about how the State Theatre downtown let some homosexual couple get married there...

GMOs Unsustainable Steve Tuttle’s column on GMOs was both uninformed and off the mark. Genetic engineering will not feed the world like Tuttle claims. However, GMOs do have the potential to starve us because they are unsustainable...

A Pin Drop Senator Debbie Stabenow spoke on August 14 to a group of Democrats in Charlevoix, an all-white, seemingly middle class, well-educated audience, half of whom were female...

A Slippery Slope Most of us would agree that an appropriate suggestion to a physician who refuses to provide a blood transfusion to a dying patient because of the doctor’s religious views would be, “Please doctor, change your profession as a less selfish means of protecting your religious freedom.”

Stabilize Our Climate Climate scientists have been saying that in order to stabilize the climate, we need to limit global warming to less than two degrees. Renewables other than hydropower provide less than 3 percent of the world energy. In order to achieve the two degree scenario, the world needs to generate 11 times more wind power by 2050, and 36 times more solar power. It will require a big helping of new nuclear power, too...

Harm From GMOs I usually agree with the well-reasoned opinions expressed in Stephen Tuttle’s columns but I must challenge his assertions concerning GMO foods. As many proponents of GMOs do, Mr. Tuttle conveniently ignores the basic fact that GMO corn, soybeans and other crops have been engineered to withstand massive quantities of herbicides. This strategy is designed to maximize profits for chemical companies, such as Monsanto. The use of copious quantities of herbicides, including glyphosates, is losing its effectiveness and the producers of these poisons are promoting the use of increasingly dangerous substances to achieve the same results...

Home · Articles · News · Features · Wikipedia.org---the on-line...
. . . .

Wikipedia.org---the on-line encyclopedia

Harley Sachs - August 4th, 2005
There was a time when encyclopedias were a kind of household furniture. A bookcase loaded with World Book or the Encyclopedia Britannica provided a family with a status symbol. That case of handsomely bound books told visitors that here was a household where knowledge mattered. The books might never be opened, but sometimes someone would set out determined to memorize or at least read the whole thing.
The set of bound encyclopedias could be supplemented with a set of the Great Books of the Western World or the Harvard Classics. It was also common to buy sets of complete works of some authors by subscription, such as the works of Dickens or Balzac.
The sets of books were expensive and encyclopedias were sold by sometimes desperate and otherwise unemployed door to door salesmen who worked on commission. A set of the Britannica could cost from $500 up, depending on your choice of binding. Because bound books of current facts are obsolete as soon as they leave the press, buyers could also subscribe to annual yearbooks. We have several yards of shelf space taken up by encyclopedias and yearbooks. That 1953 edition is now of mainly historical interest.
Those halcyon days are now over. Instead of paying the current price of about $1,500 for a set of the Britannica, you can buy the whole works, the latest edition on a single DVD for $25 plus shipping and handling. Load it into your computer’s hard drive and it’s there on demand, complete with a search engine. But even the latest Britannica on a DVD is a dead thing compared to the latest internet development in research materials, the Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org).
Talk about a Marshall McCluen “global village”! Thanks to the Internet, knowledgeable people from around the world, in fact from over one hundred countries, providing over 500 administrators have put this together. The Wikipedia has currently 1.6 million articles in 200 languages, of which one hundred are active. So you don’t have to know English to access it. The list of languages included is impressive.
That size of an evolving encyclopedia which may be added to, edited, and increased from one day to the next could put the prestigious Britannica to shame; but there’s a caveat. As I’ve often said, an undergraduate pursuing a bachelor’s degree doesn’t learn all there is to know about a subject but does learn where to look it up. In graduate school you discover that the sources you looked up as an undergraduate may have been biased, incorrect, or even lying.

The Britannica is not written by a single god-like authority, but farms out the articles to experts in the field. Those experts, for all the care given in their selection, may be wrong or may distort or omit the content. As a living work in progress, the Wikipedia is even more susceptible to vandalism and mischief.
The Wikipedia is also uneven. As with anything that grows without a firm plan there are gaps. Look up Northern Express Weekly and you’ll find that it is the largest Michigan weekly newspaper distributed in 13 counties in up to 30,000 copies, but the entry doesn’t include the newspaper’s address. The beauty of the Wikipedia is that the entry can be edited by a visitor to the site, adding something which may be in error.
The danger is that vandalism can occur. The Merriam Webster Dictionary includes words that do not exist, inventions inserted to protect the company’s copyright, but the Wikipedia is susceptible to bogus articles. What’s to prevent some wag from inventing a mythical beast and writing a fake article? Or some malicious person to sneak in a subtle distortion or outright slander in a biography? You wouldn’t have to do something obvious like calling a political figure a war criminal, but using loaded words can “spin” some readers.
You may remember Mark Twain’s retraction. He’d been called out, if I recall, because he said a woman was fat. He then apologized to the “alleged” Mrs. Xxx who “claimed to be” the… etc. It’s difficult to police such a huge work, for if printed the Wikipedia would be well over a million pages. Like any cooperative effort, the Wikipedia depends on the good will and good faith participation of all its contributors. A few gross errors or scandals can discredit the whole enterprise.
My grandson has found the Wikipedia a useful source, but just as a journalist must verify sources (Dan Rather, please note!), users of any encyclopedia must always be cautious about reliability. Even the Britannica can be wrong.
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5