View previous topic | View next topic

Dord

Page 1 of 3
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

violetriga
37643.  Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:10 am Reply with quote

What does the word "dord" mean?

http://www.fun-with-words.com/websters_dord.html

Quote:
DORD (supposedly meaning density) is a non-existent word entered into the second edition of Webster's New International Dictionary by mistake.


Possibly.

 
JumpingJack
38334.  Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:51 pm Reply with quote

Hi Violet,

We're big Wikipedia fans at QI, as you can imagine, so it's an honour to have you hang out here.

 
Jenny
38336.  Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:37 pm Reply with quote

Hi Violet and welcome. I looked at your page and some of the links, and would like to congratulate Wikipedia on the excellent breastfeeding article there. I did voluntary work as a breastfeeding counsellor for the NCT for thirteen years when I lived in England, and I thought your article was superb.

 
violetriga
38346.  Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:10 am Reply with quote

Thank you very much - very nice things to hear. I spent quite a lot of time on the Breastfeeding article in particular, and it's great to have such positive feedback.

 
JumpingJack
38354.  Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:20 am Reply with quote

By the same token, I produced all the Blackadders (apart from the original pilot and 'Blackadder Back and Forth' at the Millenium Dome) and was equally impressed by the concision, elegance, fairness and accuracy of your Blackadder article.

There was a rubbishy pseudonymous column in the Times last week dissing Wikipedia for supposedly not being subject to peer review, written by 'experts' etc.

What's the motivation for this kind of claptrap? Is it just undigested hearsay or does somebody pay people to say it?

 
violetriga
38384.  Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:53 am Reply with quote

JumpingJack wrote:
There was a rubbishy pseudonymous column in the Times last week dissing Wikipedia for supposedly not being subject to peer review, written by 'experts' etc.

What's the motivation for this kind of claptrap? Is it just undigested hearsay or does somebody pay people to say it?


We've certainly had our fair share of problems, with some serious misinformation presented as fact (John Seigenthaler Sr, being a recent high profile example). Such things are always going to happen when anyone can come along and edit articles. However, the better articles (those with "featured" status in particular) are fully referenced to ensure that all the content is factual. There are many people working on it that will fix errors, and there are numerous systems in place to help with the process.

Wikipedia received a lot of press about a year ago because it was so exciting and such a great concept. Now the bandwagon has changed to highlight our problems. But hey, errors have been pointed out in Britannica (and the like) too, and we cover things that I personally think are more interesting that. Take a look at their coverage of Blackadder, for example!

Some of the better news articles have performed decent investigations into the project, others have just listened to someone complain about one slight factual error and blown it out of all proportion.

 
JumpingJack
38395.  Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:35 am Reply with quote

Well quite.

As someone who has done loads of press interviews over the years, my experience is that newspaper reporting is much less accurate than Wikipedia.

 
samivel
38431.  Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:44 pm Reply with quote

Newspaper reporting is less accurate than American missiles

 
QI Individual
38539.  Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:24 pm Reply with quote

JumpingJack wrote:
Well quite.

As someone who has done loads of press interviews over the years, my experience is that newspaper reporting is much less accurate than Wikipedia.

Quite!

When you read an article in a newspaper on a subject which you are knowledgeable about yourself you notice how many inaccuracies there are in it. It therefore logically follows that whenever you read an article on a subject that you are not knowledgeable about chances are it is equally flawed.





(BTW Jack. Can you tell us some more about the new Blackadder series?)

 
JumpingJack
38565.  Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:55 pm Reply with quote

Absolutely so.

And these inaccurate reports are often as the result of direct, personal and recent interviews with the people concerned.
There's no excuse, really.

 
Caradoc
38591.  Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:41 pm Reply with quote

JumpingJack wrote:
There was a rubbishy pseudonymous column in the Times last week dissing Wikipedia for supposedly not being subject to peer review, written by 'experts' etc.

What's the motivation for this kind of claptrap? Is it just undigested hearsay or does somebody pay people to say it?


Yes someone does pay people to say this sort of thing, Wikipedia commits the cardinal sin of being free. Its a bit like the not very subtle attacks on the beeb by the Times & the Sun. At the risk of being accused of plugging, Private eye runs a few quotes from News International publications either praising Sky or belittleing the beeb every edition.

 
Cleverina Clogs
38664.  Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:29 am Reply with quote

The thing about wikipedia is it always reminds me of that joke Jasper Carrot did about saying 'wiki wiki' abroad ... not very funny really.

 
Frederick The Monk
38668.  Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:15 am Reply with quote

More today on the bbc website here today about the whole wikipedia 'scandal'. It seems the man who posted fake information 'as a joke' has finally apologised.

 
Scurra
38783.  Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:59 pm Reply with quote

samivel wrote:
Newspaper reporting is less accurate than American missiles
Newspaper reporting is entirely accurate and reliable unless it's regarding something you know about.

 
samivel
38842.  Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:31 pm Reply with quote

Only if you're gullible enough to believe it

 

Page 1 of 3
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group