Comments on: The Internets Lack of a Supreme Being

By: Jason Blumstein

Jason Blumstein — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 04:08:55 +0000

Joel, that was my main point! I was saying that a Supreme Wikipedian as one person was a terrible idea. I believe the system of Us’s that we have in place where we are equals in our says who are able to eliminate bias that would probably happen if there was just one Supreme Wikipedian.
Also, I don’t believe that britannica is ever cited in true academic papers for exactly that reason of being a second hand source. You don’t actually research, you just look at things other people who researched said.

By: Joel Ferm

Joel Ferm — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 04:01:15 +0000

Wikipedia can’t be regarded as the ultimate source, but you should never take an encyclopaedia as an ultimate source. It’s a collection of second-hand sources, and a useful reference, but even Britannica shouldn’t really be cited as a source itself in true academic papers.

I think they’re great as collective brain-extension of the human race though! Wikipedia is one of the best examples of Web 2.0 and all good things that come of the Cloud.

By: Ben Tondera

Ben Tondera — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 03:22:20 +0000

Good point Joel. the reason why Wikipedia generally lacks bias is due to the fact that its opinion is shaped by such a large user base, and that users can tab an article as containing bias, which will predicate the article to warn users to either discredit the article, or motivate informed members to make changes based on what they know. Wikipedia still can’t be regarded as the ultimate source, but it points people in the right direction as most of the articles in wikipedia require citations to question their validity in the eyes of the community of wikipedia.

By: Joel Ferm

Joel Ferm — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 03:11:18 +0000

Don’t you all understand? There is a Supreme Wikipedian. There is a single entity governing the entirety of wikipedia, and all of wikimedia’s other projects, wiktionary, et cetera. That ultimate force guiding wikipedia is all of us. And yes, I would say that the collective that is “us” is an individual! Remember how a state machine can be one on many different levels? Tis the same with us, as a system of tools. Many of the tools we use are systems of tools themselves. All of us are just the system of tools that makes up Wikipedia.

By: Jason Blumstein

Jason Blumstein — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:15:25 +0000

Dan
While I agree with you about those musicians, those are honestly ones who can be indisputable when it comes to them having effected music. But when you get into people who are more questionable, I think there is when people’s opinions will take over. No one would deny that Lennon was great and contributed to music, but Britney Spears also contributed to musical history. Yes, I just compared abysmal Britney to the great John Lennon, I can never be forgiven. My point being that you cannot deny that Britney shaped music during the 90’s in a way similar to Lennon and the Beatles during the 60’s. I know I am making a bit of a stretch here, but bear with me. A much better example would be how Nirvana shook up music in the 90’s the same way groups like the Beatles shook up music in the 60’s. It is widely said that Nirvana catapulted alternative rock into the mainstream with the release of Smells like Teen Spirit, and yet Time Magazine said in 2006 that it was their worst song on the Album. I think you would call that a critic being completely wrong, least in comparison to everyone else who praises it. Honestly I am the worst person to be arguing this, as music and I have never gone well together. I suppose I agree with you in terms of musicians, but idk still about artists suchas say painters…or idk. So bloody confusing.

By: Katherine Anderson

Katherine Anderson — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:08:36 +0000

I’m really sorry, team. I don’t know what’s gotten into me. It’s really late, and I appear to have lost my mind, or at least my normal degree of inhibition (maybe it’s because I’m online?). I’m not drunk. Honest.
I think I’m going to go write a post, now.

By: Katherine Anderson

Katherine Anderson — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:06:43 +0000

And me. You left out me.

By: Dan Pierson

Dan Pierson — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:23:57 +0000

That small list that I came up with doesn’t even scratch the surface of great innovators in music. I left out Bob Dylan as well as numerous others.

By: Luke Kaiser

Luke Kaiser — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:31:22 +0000

I agree with Dan. The musicians he named - there are several more, obviously who meet these criteria; Bob Dylan springs to mind - have accomplished things that make them easy choices for the short list of highly influential people. Saying that these are opinions because an opposing side exists isn’t as effective as one would hope, since people seem to have an enduring attraction to dissonance; look at the people who deny the Holocaust.

(I’m not trying to equate the importance of the debate concerning Miles’ greatness to the Holocaust. It’s just an example.)

By: Dan Pierson

Dan Pierson — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:46:14 +0000

What I have been trying to get at is that Miles Davis, John Lennon, Ravi Shankar, Bjork, Maurice Ravel, Elton John, Thom Yorke, and Beethoven are all incredible musicians that have greatly contributed to the history of music. FACT. It is OFFICIAL. Denying that these musician have a made a significant contribution to music is like saying that Einstein had no significant contributions to physics. OPINION comes into play when I say that Miles Davis is the greatest innovator of the 20th century. That is highly debatable because it is my opinion. There are concrete qualities that make a musician great and there is extensive knowledge that a physicist needs to understand in order to be considered a great physicist. When you read about an artist on wikipedia you don’t get any opinions, but rather factual information about what their art was all about. When you have a critic who says that an incompetent musician is great it’s like like someone hailing an incompetent physicist as the one of the greats. You have to reach a certain level of competency to be considered a “great” in any field.