Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG.

[Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>]

In article <09bDn$GxyeCOFAH3@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
 Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:

> In message <iuco82$u6s$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper
> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes
> >On 06/28/2011 09:03 AM, Chris H wrote:
> >> In message <iuchk8$gha$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper
> >> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> 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.  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.

'Twas ever thus. Look at the trouble it took to get 
Christian scripture published in English. Likely
it would never have happened without movable type.

> 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
> 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".
> 
> > 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?

Else how are we to know it is complete crap?

> 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?

As I understand it, Wikipedia demands references 
to peer reviewed literature

> 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?

Agree. Battling nutters and zealots is usually a poor use of our time.

> No wonder wiki is a mess.  

Disagree. It is as orderly or more so than many public forums.

> Yes a lot of it is good ad accurate but a
> hell of a lot is a mess.
> 
> 
> If Wiki is not correct then it is wrong

-- 
Michael Press