... on a Few Items where "Simon Whistler" Needs Better Fact Check · .... on a Few More Items Where "Simon Whistler" Needs Improving "His" Fact Check · ... on Use and Abuse of Wiki · On more Fact Check Fails "for Simon Whistler" · Fact Check Miss on Myself, Too
Top 10 Most Pathetic Ways People Abused Wikipedia
TopTenz | 16.XI.2018
- 6:20 "Now we're not going to begrudge someone for using Wikipedia as a jumping-off point"
Thank you, I often quote wiki articles (usually attributing by link, unless I quote very many articles on a theme, when I link to only one), so I appreciate this stance.
Some seem to have the idea, if you quote wiki, even with attribution, you are braving the acacemic rule against plagiarising wiki.
As to Jarre quote which was made up, fortunately I often access things which are less interesting to make up.
- 8:44 I have been accused of vandalising French wikipedia.
Here is the story.
I am a Geocentric. I am also well versed in the historic controversies around it.
On the French page of Géocentrisme, I made some changes:
- 1) Geocentrism doesn't say Earth is "centre of the solar system" (pointless, and as for Tychonic geocentrism arguably misleading), but "of the universe."
- 2) I deleted "in perfect circles" which is true for some types of geocentric systems (notably Aristotle) but inessential and not true of Tychonian system as updated by Riccioli.
- 3) I added a set of paragraphs on how Geocentrism involved more than one system (Aristotelic, Ptolemaic, Tychonic)
- 4) I involved a paragraph on how Geocentrism sees astrophysics in Thomistic style (God moves the whole shebang and within it angels move the several diverse celestial bodies).
- 5) I finished this off with a paragraph on how parallax contributed to Catholics accepting Heliocentrism, while the parallax as discussed between Galileo and St Robert Bellarmine not was identic to the parallax which was thereupon discovered by I think it was Herschel ... meaning there is no reason to reject Geocentrism.
That's it. That final touch is perhaps against the wikipedian rules of impartiality and non-controversial content (not editing in own research or controversial theories, which mine arguably is), but the other ones are simply improving on the historiography of the article.
I did a similar remark on the passage "parallaxe de la lumière stellaire" in the article Parallaxe.
Now, this was back in 2005 and 2006.
I was of course noting that parts of my work was being discarded by subsequent edits, so, in order to have my work not lost, I copied the articles as I had left them on a site of mine, an MSN Group, which no longer exists any more than other MSN Groups since Bill Gates did furious vandalism in february 2009 on lots of MSN Groups, all which could not be transferred to Multiply, which postings I then copied onto the blog where I saved all 50 French postings on that group ...
Here they are, and "ma version 1" refers to work of 2005, "ma version 2" to work of 2006.
Note, some are seemingly still stamping me as a wikipedia vandal because of this:
En français sur Antimodernism : Parallaxe
En français sur Antimodernism : Géocentrisme, ma vers. 1
En français sur Antimodernism : Géocentrisme, ma vers. 2
- In sum : some would probably be abusing other features of the internet, like bounce rates:
New blog on the kid : Si Russie et Ukraine manipulent le lectorat ailleurs?