From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,232e89dd4cc3c154 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!94.232.116.16.MISMATCH!ramfeed-2.ams.xsnews.nl!feed.xsnews.nl!border-2.ams.xsnews.nl!feeder.news-service.com!85.214.198.2.MISMATCH!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: James Kuyper Newsgroups: sci.math,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:20:27 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <4dae2a4b$0$55577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4dbd6e9c$0$12957$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com> <925saiFj03U7@mid.individual.net> <4dbe2304$0$12961$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com> <4dda0486$0$67782$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <4e098093$0$79550$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <9uBxDBFYEdCOFA37@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> <09bDn$GxyeCOFAH3@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:20:30 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="z6x13JPcEt9SiQRsy+GiBQ"; logging-data="1868"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lY10ud+ugW+c5KsJSm1cO+CAu5s+R9Lk=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10 In-Reply-To: <09bDn$GxyeCOFAH3@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> Cancel-Lock: sha1:zre4CV8WEudRIPhKcN7JnAo6/ME= Xref: g2news2.google.com sci.math:242243 comp.lang.c:130809 comp.lang.fortran:44928 comp.lang.pl1:2699 comp.lang.ada:21023 Date: 2011-06-28T20:20:27-04:00 List-Id: On 06/28/2011 11:01 AM, Chris H wrote: > In message , James Kuyper > writes >> On 06/28/2011 09:03 AM, Chris H wrote: >>> In message , James Kuyper >>> writes >> ... >>>> It's only worthwhile pointing out the unreliability of wikipedia if you >>>> can identify a more reliable source. >>> >>> That is not true. Unreliable information should be removed if it is >>> wrong. >> >> If you are justified in your belief that something is wrong, you will >> have an alternative source that you consider more reliable. > > Not always. If so, please provide a counter-example. If it happens often enough to justify bothering to mention that possibility, it shouldn't be hard to come up with one. > ... Also in many cases not information that can be put on a > public web page. It might surprise you that in the information age > information is power and a lot of it is NOT in the public domain. One of the costs of secrecy is that people reach incorrect conclusions and make bad decisions based upon the absence of the information that's been kept secret. That's not their fault, it's the fault of the secret keepers, and in an ideal world the secret keepers would be held liable for the costs of those badly made decisions. The existence of secrets is not adequate justification for criticizing Wikipedia; it makes no claim to being able to penetrate people's secrets - that's Wikileaks you're thinking of. > There is a very stupid belief these days that if it is not on the > Internet it is not real. So if you can't provide a link it is not Who said anything about a link? I just asked for a citation. You remember those - they predate the Internet; they predate the invention of electronics; they predate the invention of the the printing press. > real.... I was discussing something similar with a friend who was at > the start or the Internet and was discussing this in a forum. When > challenged for links to prove what he said (as him saying "I was there > did not count") he replied with "two filing cabinets beside my desk". A citation that cannot be checked by the person you're communicating with is useless; if such a citation is the only reason you can give for believing something, the other person is well justified in being skeptical about it. You might be right, but you've not given him adequate justification to believe you. >> If so, you >> should cite it; without such a citation, other people cannot judge the >> accuracy of your belief that it is, in fact, a more reliable source. > > SO if I write some complete crap on a wiki page (with no citations) it > should stand unless some one has citations to prove otherwise? How did you reach such a stupid conclusion? There's not even the remotest connection between what I said and your response. Wikipedia's standards require citations; the editors do clean up wiki pages that lack them; and the particular page currently under discussion had citations. > What you are saying is that any old rubbish can go on wiki unless some > one has the time and resources (ie money) maintain the page to put > something else up? Again, that comment has no logical connection to anything which I said, which was about wiki page which did have citations, just as most of them do. > Besides often you have to be prepared to battle nutters and zealots who > won't accept reality. Why should I spend time and effort on that? That's a different matter; I've never bothered fixing a wiki page, so I could hardly criticize someone else for failing to do so. On the other hand, I've recognized very few errors on those pages. This is partly because I use Wikipedia mainly to look up things I don't know about. However, I've also frequently looked at Wikipedia pages covering topics I'm an expert in; I've seldom seen any defect in any of those pages that was serious enough that I'd want to bother correcting it, even if I had endless free time. The worst cases I've seen are pages that were clearly written by non-native speakers of English, and even those were far cleaner than the typical message I receive from co-workers and in-laws who aren't native speakers of English. > If Wiki is not correct then it is wrong. Of course it's not correct. No significant repository of knowledge is free from errors. It's just a question of how many, and what type. If you expect perfection, you're dreaming. If you consider a source of information unusable solely because it has errors, without quantification of those errors, there aren't any usable sources. -- James Kuyper