Funk metal was a thing: “a fusion genre of funk rock and alternative metal which infuses heavy metal music (often thrash metal) with elements of funk and punk rock. Funk metal was part of the alternative metal movement.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funk_metal (I know – Wikipedia – but it’s a pretty good summary.)
I never understand the amount of hate wikipedia gets, it is literally a summary of what most people think. Do these hipsters who hate wikipedia just inherently start hating something the moment there’s a consensus about it?
Some people like their factual information to be, well, factual, rather than the consensus opinion. Although actually, Wikipedia is better at that than most people think, which ironically makes it an example of “what most people think” being wrong itself.
Wikipedia’s factual accuracy is almost irrelevant.
It’s a fine repository of “common knowledge” upon which most people make decisions. Sure, it’s carefully monitored (if an FTL drive design were released it would be filtered immediately) but an inaccurate opinion is potentially useful in competition against other erroneous memes.
I wish I still had my pocket OpenMoko/Pandigital WikiReader just to compare the static snapshot from 2010 against current “Subject Matter Experts”.
hum that thread is rather strange to me… it may be because of language differences, but I tend to check fr *and* de *and* en wiki pages of almost every page I try to have a better understanding of (language I appear to understand enough to get nuances, plus I also occasionally try to get a bit of confirmation/sources with the es, it, da, nl, pt, se, pl, sk, and most rarely tr page versions) so I’m still a bit off with what this is all about. Get me clear, I don’t think wikipedia is anyhow perfect or a valid source for all that is, but the reasons here appear me wrong – or maybe oudated?
For a certain number of topics, mostly hard science, it is a pretty valid source of what is (or rather was 5 years ago) validated, since it cites its sources and it can be checked, and is mainly modified by specialists. For literature, music, and so on, it is rather good – subjects can be debated, but most of time, any academic book you’ll get on the subject would also be subject to some debate. For politics or economics, it’s moot, bc these subject are inherently ascientific.
Whenever there is not a strong consensus, or something seems off, or too novel, or too groundbreaking, I always check the discussions and the history of the page, plus the contributor pages to check for bias. It is exactly the same thing I do with books and academic reports (who funds it for example, is for me a matter of importance).
While it has been, for contemporary music, until around 2010 a repository of a mix of (published) common knowledge and best-sellers excerpts, it is not such anymore, bc on one hand many more scholars contribute, and on the other hand bc many more subjects are encompassed by both academic and scientific publications (an academic editor can publish non-scientific, non peer reviewed books such a collections or digests) – so it doesnt rely anymore on if a band had enough money to get an ad in a national magazine which would in exchange get a few lines about the said band, and the development of social networks since has rendered the use of modifying wikipedia to get known/change views much more useless.
Also for the left bias, since the beginning it was also clear that regarding a certain number of non academic topics, the bias were not only toward who was the most numerous, but also had the wp key to the house, so today the wikimedia foundation, leading to, for the french version, an overpowerment of both libertarian (Jimbo’s heir?) and ultra-right admins. But that only matters if there is a debate base on divergent sources thats has to come to a decision to begin with, and it’s pretty obvious to know when. Maybe it’s because I come from a more secular society and *never* check on any matter that could have for example intelligent design bs try to interfer (it doesnt for example in sufficiently precise articles on evolution, like, I don’t know, how certain type of bugs got a specific colour).
As I said, almost any critic you can address to wikipedia, you can address to books and/or research (having a few friends being/having doing research in fields such as literature, history, liver cell biology, neuro-biology or zoology)….
@khn0, the trouble is not the possibility that the information might be accurate. It may very well have been accurate when it was first posted. The trouble is the speed and ease with which the information can be changed – often going unnoticed.
Even if the information was accurate when any given page was created, and even if that page was created by a certifiable authority on the topic, anyone can change that information any time they want to. And they don’t have to be right – they just have to feel like doing it.
Most people who use wikipedia are not like you. You actually research. They don’t reference several different language sites, and they don’t check the page/edit histories. Because they don’t care. They read the site in their own language, and they take it at face value. So they are reading something which may or may not be completely wrong, and accepting it as fact. That is why wikipedia themselves tell you “Wikipedia is not a reliable source.”
It is literally not a summary of what most people think. That would require submissions from most of the people, which would then be evaluated and summarized into a single entry.
It is literally comprised of submitted articles and “corrections” from individual users. So it’s a collection of information from a relatively small number of people who have a strong enough opinion on a given subject to actually take the time to submit an entry.
And you don’t need any credentials to submit corrections to a page. “Wikipedia currently has no policy with regard to the accuracy, validity, or proper verification of academic or professional credentials of our editors.” Their terms of use say that information must be verifiable, but that doesn’t mean that it’s actually verified.
So a user with a strong opinion – even if their opinion is dead wrong – can submit a “correction” to a page. Yes, their edit will undoubtedly be fixed… eventually. But that could take quite some time before someone catches it, and you could be reading the wrong information in the meantime, believing it to be accurate.
And Wikipedia themselves even acknowledge this:
“Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Many colleges and universities, as well as public and private secondary schools, have policies that prohibit students from using Wikipedia as their source for doing research papers, essays, or equivalent assignments. This is because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any moment. When an error is recognized it is usually fixed. However, because Wikipedia cannot monitor thousands of edits made every day, some of those edits could contain vandalism or could be simply wrong and left unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years.”
All too true, awgiedawgie. But sadly Wikipedia has been (inevitably) subverted away from its intended goal of becoming a universal open source repository of all human knowledge into a guide to “doublethink”. The same forces which molded Alan Kay’s Dynabook concept into the Amazon Kindle tablet.
The scariest aspect is that emergent AIs will rely on such walled garden Newspeak sources as their foundational world views.
It’s largely not vetted—and the correcting and recorrecting that goes on is not vetting at all.
I’ve learned to use it for dates, or lists, or summaries…but even then to take it all with a grain of salt. I’d never use it to find anything more than a birth date for, say, a contemporary politician.
Even more historical entries can be suspect. I read an entry about a story, where someone had put a list of historical figures that a particular character was based on—and listed one historical figure who I don’t think was even born before the story was written, much less entered on a public life.
It’s all filtered through the bias of the present day—well, history books do that, too—but it’s somewhat pernicious because it’s so easily available.
I feel moved to add a little more about historical bias, with an example. Some of you may have heard of or read Arthur Schlesinger’s “The Age of Jackson.” I’ve read it. (Never mind that it’s dull as ditchwater.)
The point of view was pro-FDR, that the historians picked Jackson as a model and predecessor for Roosevelt and his actions. Schlesinger picked and chose his examples and arguments to support this point of view—and it showed. It wasn’t an easy fit, either. (Schlesinger later traded his reputation as an historian for a seat at the Kennedy table, too.)
Wikipedia is something like that right now—though much faster, changing constantly, and written by and large by amateurs.
While the whole writ in sand nature of the medium is to be disliked, my point of going past indifference was the “great purge” crusade that went/might still endure on of webcomics. Those actions solidified just how reliable it wasn’t. Groupthink wasn’t supposed to be where it went.
Tigerlily leads from the front. Inspiring, but unless casimir is correct about the forcefield, not a particularly good idea as she’s going to get stung first. Maybe the funk insulates her from bee venom? Or maybe the cape is hiding half-a-dozen cobras hanging on tooth and, er, fang while providing antivemom.
Tigerlily is descended from inhabitants of Lovetron—so it was stated, and I don’t think we can discard that because Princess Berenice has resumed her former personality.
Possibly the humanoid inhabitants of Lovetron have built up immunity to bee stings.
I desire a poster showing the full length funk princess with a spiral of bees going out from the center. In other words I want that panel expanded to show Tigerlily’s full stature.
All of the gang who are metal must protect all the rest from bee’s nettles. With that good a shield, Pavane’s bound to yield—now safe are the meat types and et. al..
Every on who is metal… kind of reminds me of how the Tin Woodman defeated the Wicked Witches bees.
Or can eat bees…. well, … they are yummy.
Bees in batter,…it’s a real recipe
And several bug eating cookbooks online in pdf format
You’re right, definitely another Wizard of Oz callback here!
The Woozy in the Patchwork Girl of Oz was fund of eating honey-bees. (And bread and cheese.)
“Child, bees don’t sting the honey.”
Yes, so in tune with the character
LET’S GET READY TO RUUUUUMMMMBBBBLLLEEEE!!!!
LET’S GET READY TO BUUUUUUMMMMMMMBBBBBLLLLEEEE!!!!
Let all cats old enough to catch their own pray gather around the high rock for a clan meeting!
“I thought you were Funk, not Metal…”
Funk metal was a thing: “a fusion genre of funk rock and alternative metal which infuses heavy metal music (often thrash metal) with elements of funk and punk rock. Funk metal was part of the alternative metal movement.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funk_metal (I know – Wikipedia – but it’s a pretty good summary.)
I never understand the amount of hate wikipedia gets, it is literally a summary of what most people think. Do these hipsters who hate wikipedia just inherently start hating something the moment there’s a consensus about it?
IMO, it’s more that any information found there is very suspect and should not be relied upon.
Some people like their factual information to be, well, factual, rather than the consensus opinion. Although actually, Wikipedia is better at that than most people think, which ironically makes it an example of “what most people think” being wrong itself.
Even their “consensus” is suspect. They’ve been known to reject corrections made by subjects themselves for left-bias political reasons.
Wikipedia’s factual accuracy is almost irrelevant.
It’s a fine repository of “common knowledge” upon which most people make decisions. Sure, it’s carefully monitored (if an FTL drive design were released it would be filtered immediately) but an inaccurate opinion is potentially useful in competition against other erroneous memes.
I wish I still had my pocket OpenMoko/Pandigital WikiReader just to compare the static snapshot from 2010 against current “Subject Matter Experts”.
hum that thread is rather strange to me… it may be because of language differences, but I tend to check fr *and* de *and* en wiki pages of almost every page I try to have a better understanding of (language I appear to understand enough to get nuances, plus I also occasionally try to get a bit of confirmation/sources with the es, it, da, nl, pt, se, pl, sk, and most rarely tr page versions) so I’m still a bit off with what this is all about. Get me clear, I don’t think wikipedia is anyhow perfect or a valid source for all that is, but the reasons here appear me wrong – or maybe oudated?
For a certain number of topics, mostly hard science, it is a pretty valid source of what is (or rather was 5 years ago) validated, since it cites its sources and it can be checked, and is mainly modified by specialists. For literature, music, and so on, it is rather good – subjects can be debated, but most of time, any academic book you’ll get on the subject would also be subject to some debate. For politics or economics, it’s moot, bc these subject are inherently ascientific.
Whenever there is not a strong consensus, or something seems off, or too novel, or too groundbreaking, I always check the discussions and the history of the page, plus the contributor pages to check for bias. It is exactly the same thing I do with books and academic reports (who funds it for example, is for me a matter of importance).
While it has been, for contemporary music, until around 2010 a repository of a mix of (published) common knowledge and best-sellers excerpts, it is not such anymore, bc on one hand many more scholars contribute, and on the other hand bc many more subjects are encompassed by both academic and scientific publications (an academic editor can publish non-scientific, non peer reviewed books such a collections or digests) – so it doesnt rely anymore on if a band had enough money to get an ad in a national magazine which would in exchange get a few lines about the said band, and the development of social networks since has rendered the use of modifying wikipedia to get known/change views much more useless.
Also for the left bias, since the beginning it was also clear that regarding a certain number of non academic topics, the bias were not only toward who was the most numerous, but also had the wp key to the house, so today the wikimedia foundation, leading to, for the french version, an overpowerment of both libertarian (Jimbo’s heir?) and ultra-right admins. But that only matters if there is a debate base on divergent sources thats has to come to a decision to begin with, and it’s pretty obvious to know when. Maybe it’s because I come from a more secular society and *never* check on any matter that could have for example intelligent design bs try to interfer (it doesnt for example in sufficiently precise articles on evolution, like, I don’t know, how certain type of bugs got a specific colour).
As I said, almost any critic you can address to wikipedia, you can address to books and/or research (having a few friends being/having doing research in fields such as literature, history, liver cell biology, neuro-biology or zoology)….
@khn0, the trouble is not the possibility that the information might be accurate. It may very well have been accurate when it was first posted. The trouble is the speed and ease with which the information can be changed – often going unnoticed.
Even if the information was accurate when any given page was created, and even if that page was created by a certifiable authority on the topic, anyone can change that information any time they want to. And they don’t have to be right – they just have to feel like doing it.
Most people who use wikipedia are not like you. You actually research. They don’t reference several different language sites, and they don’t check the page/edit histories. Because they don’t care. They read the site in their own language, and they take it at face value. So they are reading something which may or may not be completely wrong, and accepting it as fact. That is why wikipedia themselves tell you “Wikipedia is not a reliable source.”
It is literally not a summary of what most people think. That would require submissions from most of the people, which would then be evaluated and summarized into a single entry.
It is literally comprised of submitted articles and “corrections” from individual users. So it’s a collection of information from a relatively small number of people who have a strong enough opinion on a given subject to actually take the time to submit an entry.
And you don’t need any credentials to submit corrections to a page. “Wikipedia currently has no policy with regard to the accuracy, validity, or proper verification of academic or professional credentials of our editors.” Their terms of use say that information must be verifiable, but that doesn’t mean that it’s actually verified.
So a user with a strong opinion – even if their opinion is dead wrong – can submit a “correction” to a page. Yes, their edit will undoubtedly be fixed… eventually. But that could take quite some time before someone catches it, and you could be reading the wrong information in the meantime, believing it to be accurate.
And Wikipedia themselves even acknowledge this:
“Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Many colleges and universities, as well as public and private secondary schools, have policies that prohibit students from using Wikipedia as their source for doing research papers, essays, or equivalent assignments. This is because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any moment. When an error is recognized it is usually fixed. However, because Wikipedia cannot monitor thousands of edits made every day, some of those edits could contain vandalism or could be simply wrong and left unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years.”
All too true, awgiedawgie. But sadly Wikipedia has been (inevitably) subverted away from its intended goal of becoming a universal open source repository of all human knowledge into a guide to “doublethink”. The same forces which molded Alan Kay’s Dynabook concept into the Amazon Kindle tablet.
The scariest aspect is that emergent AIs will rely on such walled garden Newspeak sources as their foundational world views.
It’s largely not vetted—and the correcting and recorrecting that goes on is not vetting at all.
I’ve learned to use it for dates, or lists, or summaries…but even then to take it all with a grain of salt. I’d never use it to find anything more than a birth date for, say, a contemporary politician.
Even more historical entries can be suspect. I read an entry about a story, where someone had put a list of historical figures that a particular character was based on—and listed one historical figure who I don’t think was even born before the story was written, much less entered on a public life.
It’s all filtered through the bias of the present day—well, history books do that, too—but it’s somewhat pernicious because it’s so easily available.
I feel moved to add a little more about historical bias, with an example. Some of you may have heard of or read Arthur Schlesinger’s “The Age of Jackson.” I’ve read it. (Never mind that it’s dull as ditchwater.)
The point of view was pro-FDR, that the historians picked Jackson as a model and predecessor for Roosevelt and his actions. Schlesinger picked and chose his examples and arguments to support this point of view—and it showed. It wasn’t an easy fit, either. (Schlesinger later traded his reputation as an historian for a seat at the Kennedy table, too.)
Wikipedia is something like that right now—though much faster, changing constantly, and written by and large by amateurs.
When they were young it was new and their teachers didn’t trust it and told them how bad it was. Turns out is more accurate that most encyclopedias.
While the whole writ in sand nature of the medium is to be disliked, my point of going past indifference was the “great purge” crusade that went/might still endure on of webcomics. Those actions solidified just how reliable it wasn’t. Groupthink wasn’t supposed to be where it went.
And, Alien Ant Farm’s cover of Smooth Criminal apparently counts, which is rather appropriate.
Tigerlilly and Unity’s dynamic brings me such joy.
Hitty’s metal, and she can hit, too.
Uh-huh. Hitty IS a hit. Minnie Beesquatch, her secret, inherited name.
Does Tigerlily pronounce “strength” with the “g” or is the “g” silent?
…any shield they form can be flown over and around.
…unless Tigerlily unleashes her spring-powered force field.
She’s handing out spring-powered butterfly nets behind her back.
Tigerlily leads from the front. Inspiring, but unless casimir is correct about the forcefield, not a particularly good idea as she’s going to get stung first. Maybe the funk insulates her from bee venom? Or maybe the cape is hiding half-a-dozen cobras hanging on tooth and, er, fang while providing antivemom.
Tigerlily is descended from inhabitants of Lovetron—so it was stated, and I don’t think we can discard that because Princess Berenice has resumed her former personality.
Possibly the humanoid inhabitants of Lovetron have built up immunity to bee stings.
I desire a poster of that first panel.
I desire a poster showing the full length funk princess with a spiral of bees going out from the center. In other words I want that panel expanded to show Tigerlily’s full stature.
The problem is, in isolation the first panel looks like Tigerlily is trying to motivate a swarm of bees.
In a way, that’s not wrong. But she’s trying to motivate the bees by talking to everyone else.
All of the gang who are metal must protect all the rest from bee’s nettles. With that good a shield, Pavane’s bound to yield—now safe are the meat types and et. al..
Bravo!
Well, good thing Tip ISN’T there, unless he keeps epi pens with his handgun.
There are those Epi Cobras, …….Snuggly friendly self activating HISStamine loaded cobras
That’s anti-HISStamine loaded cobras.