Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
The Truth About Psychiatry
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marguerite" data-source="post: 71275" data-attributes="member: 1991"><p>Crikey, I was just reading the Wikipedia reference about this guy and getting steamed. I read the whole thing, there were internal clues which made me very suspicious as to the source and accuracy of the information. It almost read like a CV - worrying.</p><p></p><p>In the Aussie media at the moment - a lot of discussion about how Wikipedia gets edited selectively by those motivated by self-interest. Some lovely examples have been given, including how the Aussie Treasurer has had his staff edit out some particularly unflattering references which were nevertheless legitimate. Our NSW Premier has put in some especially flattering descriptions of himself. Other examples also.</p><p></p><p>There is now software to read who edits Wikipedia, when, and in what matter. I would very much like to analyse Breggin's entry in Wikipedia because I recognise a lot of the style in which it has been written - trying to sound impartial but still classic promotional material, thinly disguised. I emphasise, this is only how it seems to me - without that software I cannot confirm my suspicions. I'd lay bets on it, though.</p><p></p><p>Increasingly, Wikipedia is suspect because people who do not like their entries are among those (ie everyone) free to make changes. being able to track these changes is going to be an invaluable research tool.</p><p></p><p>So don't believe everything you read - not even Wikipedia.</p><p></p><p>Marg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marguerite, post: 71275, member: 1991"] Crikey, I was just reading the Wikipedia reference about this guy and getting steamed. I read the whole thing, there were internal clues which made me very suspicious as to the source and accuracy of the information. It almost read like a CV - worrying. In the Aussie media at the moment - a lot of discussion about how Wikipedia gets edited selectively by those motivated by self-interest. Some lovely examples have been given, including how the Aussie Treasurer has had his staff edit out some particularly unflattering references which were nevertheless legitimate. Our NSW Premier has put in some especially flattering descriptions of himself. Other examples also. There is now software to read who edits Wikipedia, when, and in what matter. I would very much like to analyse Breggin's entry in Wikipedia because I recognise a lot of the style in which it has been written - trying to sound impartial but still classic promotional material, thinly disguised. I emphasise, this is only how it seems to me - without that software I cannot confirm my suspicions. I'd lay bets on it, though. Increasingly, Wikipedia is suspect because people who do not like their entries are among those (ie everyone) free to make changes. being able to track these changes is going to be an invaluable research tool. So don't believe everything you read - not even Wikipedia. Marg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
The Truth About Psychiatry
Top