Sidwell Sex Scandal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL, citing Wikipedia for anything.

This is such a tired gripe - yes for obscure pages, but most established Wikipedia pages are well-sourced and reliable now.

[Anonymous]

Bump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL, citing Wikipedia for anything.

This is such a tired gripe - yes for obscure pages, but most established Wikipedia pages are well-sourced and reliable now.

It may be tired but I wouldn't cite wikipedia on any issue of importance or controversy. One "established" wikipedia page was the bane of my professional existence for a while -- a chart in my area of expertise kept popping up everywhere, and it was flat wrong. I was running academics referring to this chart, students, professional colleagues, etc., and I just couldn't figure out how so many people kept relying on the same incorrect chart, where it was coming from. Finally I belatedly discovered that it was on a widely-cited wikpedia page, and tons of people were using that as their source for information on my topic.

I was eventually able to get it corrected on wikipedia but it was incredible to me that so many people were willing to cite wikipedia "information" uncritically without looking seriously into whether it was actually correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL, citing Wikipedia for anything.

This is such a tired gripe - yes for obscure pages, but most established Wikipedia pages are well-sourced and reliable now.

It may be tired but I wouldn't cite wikipedia on any issue of importance or controversy. One "established" wikipedia page was the bane of my professional existence for a while -- a chart in my area of expertise kept popping up everywhere, and it was flat wrong. I was running academics referring to this chart, students, professional colleagues, etc., and I just couldn't figure out how so many people kept relying on the same incorrect chart, where it was coming from. Finally I belatedly discovered that it was on a widely-cited wikpedia page, and tons of people were using that as their source for information on my topic.

I was eventually able to get it corrected on wikipedia but it was incredible to me that so many people were willing to cite wikipedia "information" uncritically without looking seriously into whether it was actually correct.

Completely agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL, citing Wikipedia for anything.

This is such a tired gripe - yes for obscure pages, but most established Wikipedia pages are well-sourced and reliable now.

It may be tired but I wouldn't cite wikipedia on any issue of importance or controversy. One "established" wikipedia page was the bane of my professional existence for a while -- a chart in my area of expertise kept popping up everywhere, and it was flat wrong. I was running academics referring to this chart, students, professional colleagues, etc., and I just couldn't figure out how so many people kept relying on the same incorrect chart, where it was coming from. Finally I belatedly discovered that it was on a widely-cited wikpedia page, and tons of people were using that as their source for information on my topic.

I was eventually able to get it corrected on wikipedia but it was incredible to me that so many people were willing to cite wikipedia "information" uncritically without looking seriously into whether it was actually correct.

You understand that the same thing happens with other sources, don't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL, citing Wikipedia for anything.

This is such a tired gripe - yes for obscure pages, but most established Wikipedia pages are well-sourced and reliable now.

It may be tired but I wouldn't cite wikipedia on any issue of importance or controversy. One "established" wikipedia page was the bane of my professional existence for a while -- a chart in my area of expertise kept popping up everywhere, and it was flat wrong. I was running academics referring to this chart, students, professional colleagues, etc., and I just couldn't figure out how so many people kept relying on the same incorrect chart, where it was coming from. Finally I belatedly discovered that it was on a widely-cited wikpedia page, and tons of people were using that as their source for information on my topic.

I was eventually able to get it corrected on wikipedia but it was incredible to me that so many people were willing to cite wikipedia "information" uncritically without looking seriously into whether it was actually correct.

You understand that the same thing happens with other sources, don't you?

What does this have to do with the thread's topic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL, citing Wikipedia for anything.

This is such a tired gripe - yes for obscure pages, but most established Wikipedia pages are well-sourced and reliable now.

It may be tired but I wouldn't cite wikipedia on any issue of importance or controversy. One "established" wikipedia page was the bane of my professional existence for a while -- a chart in my area of expertise kept popping up everywhere, and it was flat wrong. I was running academics referring to this chart, students, professional colleagues, etc., and I just couldn't figure out how so many people kept relying on the same incorrect chart, where it was coming from. Finally I belatedly discovered that it was on a widely-cited wikpedia page, and tons of people were using that as their source for information on my topic.

I was eventually able to get it corrected on wikipedia but it was incredible to me that so many people were willing to cite wikipedia "information" uncritically without looking seriously into whether it was actually correct.

You understand that the same thing happens with other sources, don't you?

Of course I do -- which is why it makes sense to distinguish between reliable sources and unreliable ones. If any source proves to be the basis of widely circulated misinformation, it should be treated as less than authoritative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Gansler stories are another black eye for Sidwell. Having the judgment of one of your most prominent alum called into question by every major news organization in the country is never good, but in the wake of the Newmyer and Pete Peterson cases, it seems time for some serious silent Quaker reflection.

What changes did Sidwell make in the wake of these scandals?

[Anonymous]

Lol. You are so creative to troll thru for this old thread every six months and find another way to bring it back. Of course, only the moderator knows for sure but if you were really concerned you would start another thread not attach it to this years old one. If you were at the school you wouldn't have to ask and if you're not it makes you seem small. GL.

[Anonymous]

Probably the Prep booster trying to resurrect a tired old thread to deflect attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol. You are so creative to troll thru for this old thread every six months and find another way to bring it back. Of course, only the moderator knows for sure but if you were really concerned you would start another thread not attach it to this years old one. If you were at the school you wouldn't have to ask and if you're not it makes you seem small. GL.

Conspiracy theory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Gansler stories are another black eye for Sidwell. Having the judgment of one of your most prominent alum called into question by every major news organization in the country is never good, but in the wake of the Newmyer and Pete Peterson cases, it seems time for some serious silent Quaker reflection.

What changes did Sidwell make in the wake of these scandals?

Were the Obamas concerned?

[Anonymous]

The Obamas haven't done anything for that school. Who cares what they think.

[Anonymous]

Keep on trollin'!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Obamas haven't done anything for that school. Who cares what they think.

Says who? How would you know?