|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 24, 2015 2:47:38 GMT
I had to go to the office anyway to get some paperwork taken care of, and I had a chat with the managing editor. Given that the bit with Nelson happened 30+ years ago, he said it was OK to go ahead with.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 24, 2015 23:38:44 GMT
Here's the first draft. ** Assessing The Situation[] So – you have your sources and you intend to start writing. Now what? One key thing you need to do is to make sure that your sources are accurate and reliable. Is this a real problem in academia? You better believe it is. And it’s surprisingly widespread, too. For example, consider wikis, those darling go-to websites for when you want to get basic information about a topic at a quick glance. Wikis can be quite informative, and if it’s a “specialist” wiki (like TF Wiki.net, which I help edit), then it may well be the best, if not only, source about a given topic. But while they may be acceptable for internet chat rooms, they’re not considered “academically” acceptable. Why? As Wikipedia itself notes ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki#Security ), vandalism (in which people maliciously edit articles to include false information) is a very real problem due to the open nature of most wikis. While some wikis will have security precautions in place to help minimize the chances of vandalism and mitigate what damage is done, there is no guarantee that any vandalism will be addressed in a timely fashion, especially with larger wikis. So that means trusting an “expert” source, correct? Sadly, not all “experts” actually are. In far too many instances, people will find that individual “experts” have actually been dishonest about their credentials. For example, consider the late Dee Jay Nelson. In the 1970s, Nelson held himself out as having a doctorate in Egyptology and an extensive resume to back himself up with. He was a darling of the counter-cult movement (this being those individuals who oppose groups they term “cults” on religious grounds) because of his pronouncements on certain issues, and in 1980 even dared people by saying “I’m either an Egyptologist or I’m fooling a lot of people” ( www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DJN.shtml ). Well, authors Robert and Rosemary Brown decided to investigate his credentials… and determined that the latter situation was the case. Nelson’s degree came from a diploma mill, and not one person on his resume claimed to know him. A few persons still try to source him, but for obvious reasons his career was finished when news of their findings emerged. So then the answer is to find an expert whose credentials are unimpeachable and trust them, correct? Not so fast. In his book Wrong (Little, Brown, and Company; 2010), author David H. Freedman recounts a story involving his father, a chemist for Dow Chemical. One of the many papers his father published contained a mistake that “apparently torpedoed” [pg. 259] the results his father had; even more embarrassingly, the mistake was only caught by a fellow scientist who had read the paper after it was published in a journal. His father would ultimately frame the letter from that scientist and keep it in his office as a reminder of how easy it is to be mistaken. So then, how does one decide upon a source to use? With great caution. To begin with, ask yourself a few questions. Do any other sources back up the claims being made? (Remember, the more sources saying the same thing, the stronger the argument.) What are the credentials of the “experts” cited? Has the information been presented correctly and in an unbiased fashion? What sources does your source use? Does the source stand to benefit in some fashion? Is the material (overly) simplistic? Remember – don’t be so quick to take things at face value. A little bit of due diligence now can save a good deal of regret later. Get as many sides as you can. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 25, 2015 2:10:49 GMT
To begin with, ask yourself a few questions. Do any other sources back up the claims being made? (Remember, the more sources saying the same thing, the stronger the argument.) If I may make a small suggestion for an addition to this section: "Even though you may feel like you have many sources saying the same thing, look out! On the web, many different sites will cite the same source, but alter the words ever so slightly to make it appear that it's from an original source that no one else is using. Because of this, you may easily find 4 or 5 different sites that seem to provide information that backs up your original source, but they're all actually either quoting or paraphrasing the same thing." If I was writing this article, I'd feel this particular pitfall was important for people to know about, but maybe that's just me. It probably stems from the fact that we have a doctor here in Denmark who's invented his very own diagnosis called "Bodily Distress Disorder" and has succesfully convinced many social workers, politicians and even other doctors that this is a well documented condition. He's done this by writing articles himself, getting less known doctors who strive for fame in research circles to back his claims and written more articles himself, but hiding his own name behind organizations where he's a board member or knows someone who's willing to put the organization's name up as a front for his endeavors. What's the point of all this? His "Bodily Distress Disorder" diagnosis is basically the same as the WHO recognized "Somatization Disorder" ( Wiki link), but with the small but very important difference that somatization disorder is seen mainly as a psychological side effect of other illnesses, either physical or psychological in nature, while his diagnosis completely ignores the underlying causes of the patient's chronic pains and tries to attribute every symptom the patient exhibits to psychological factors alone. This crusade of his to have almost every illness known to man that doctors haven't yet found a cure for (like fibromyalgia, irritabel bowel syndrome and chronic fatigue syndrome to name a few) labeled as "purely psychological in nature" has led to many petients with chronic illnesses being denied treatment and has almost completely stifled all research into these illnesses in our country. Since 2008 there have been at least two confirmed deaths in Denmark due to denial of care to patients with legitimate physical ailments that were written off as "purely psychological in nature" and several others are under investigation. The latest one occured less than 6 months ago, when a young woman called the out of hours medical service with symptoms of a pulmonary embolism. Because the doctor on the other end was informed that she had so-called "Bodily Distress Disorder" when he typed in her social security number, he shrugged it off as "purely psychological" and instructed her to take a couple of painkillers and go to bed. Her mother found her dead in her bed the next morning and the autopsy revealed that it was indeed a pulmonary embolism that killed her. Through careful manipulation of information, this man has succesfully turned every chronically ill person in Denmark into a hypochondriac in the eyes of both the social security system and the medical community and thus become very popular with social workers and politicians who are trying to save money on care for these people. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 25, 2015 4:40:36 GMT
both rather well written for what they are. (the one an instructional article, and the other a complaint about an ethics violation.)
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 25, 2015 7:57:10 GMT
This is evolving nicely, that was a pretty good article.
Oziris had excellent suggestions.
If I may add a little?..
Make big of the dont stop at the first source that agrees with what you think.
We can all find one of them if we dig deep enough.
"What I say thrice times be true" is not a valid source (Hunting of the snark) but some people truly believe if they say something often enough it becomes the truth....
As an example...
I am embroiled in a discussion with one of mine at the moment on the exact knowledge behind Autism....
On the grounds I know enough to know I dont know enough, I know I am quite up there with some of the best when it comes to the theory of certain types of autism, and how they affect the day to fay life of their numbers.
Every one is different...
There is "A" Typical, but that is not a definitive "The only one" answer to what is and isnt autistic.
Its also a live subject of discussion.
In that what is known today wont necessarily be true tomorrow, the knowledge base is expanding all the time.
Einstein was not always right, and, in truth, he welcomed and even encouraged any sort of experimentation to further his own research...
Many of the worlds greatest scientists will or have used the phrase "At this time" with vengeance, because they know future research may alter improve or even change completely their own work.
I Cite the Higgs Bosun.
After all, it was completely theoretical until very recently.
Not all experts have letters after their name.
I know a guy who can hit things with heavy hammers.
If I want any Ironwork done, he is the go-to guy, I would be a fool not to go there...
But he hasnt even a single "O" level after his name..
He didnt need them.
He finished school as soon as they would let him go and followed his father into the foundries, he makes steel.
What he doesnt know about steel could be written on the back of a postage stamp with a two inch paintbrush....
My main advice on evaluating sources is see how many valid arguments you can come up with that disprove the point...
Valid arguments.
I am watching a fake-book spat with two idiots where one has a good point to make but the other just will NOT be seen to loose an argument?...
Why then are they both idiots?..
Because the one who is right could have walked away many posts ago, we all can see she is right, and her protagonist is just trolling her.
However...
The reason I watch, I know one of them personally and I know what she is up to, I think, and want to find out how much she listened...
Give enough rope and they will hang themselves.
I think she continues the argument because she already know the phrase when in hole stop digging, so is just waiting for the troll to dig a grave deep enough?...
Right, enough blethering from me, I hope I have been helpful, and good luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 25, 2015 12:28:35 GMT
both rather well written for what they are. (the one an instructional article, and the other a complaint about an ethics violation.) Just to be clear, my suggested addition to Ironhold's article is only the part in quotes. The rest is just an explanation of why I feel those three lines are so important to include. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 25, 2015 13:18:03 GMT
I would also add that sometimes getting OFF the damn net and sourcing other material is good.
Dependant on what it is...
But historical sources have been around since before the internet was invented.....
Many of todays "adults" think that isnt true, and if you cant find it on the internet, therefore it doesnt exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 25, 2015 16:05:09 GMT
both rather well written for what they are. (the one an instructional article, and the other a complaint about an ethics violation.) Just to be clear, my suggested addition to Ironhold's article is only the part in quotes. The rest is just an explanation of why I feel those three lines are so important to include. doesn't mean your explanation was not well written. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 25, 2015 20:03:05 GMT
Just to be clear, my suggested addition to Ironhold's article is only the part in quotes. The rest is just an explanation of why I feel those three lines are so important to include. doesn't mean your explanation was not well written. Thanks  |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 25, 2015 20:09:11 GMT
This is evolving nicely, that was a pretty good article. Oziris had excellent suggestions. If I may add a little?.. Make big of the dont stop at the first source that agrees with what you think. We can all find one of them if we dig deep enough. "What I say thrice times be true" is not a valid source (Hunting of the snark) but some people truly believe if they say something often enough it becomes the truth... Good point: Be wary of confirmation bias. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 26, 2015 1:45:24 GMT
I've redone the paragraph.
**
To begin with, ask yourself a few questions. Do any other sources back up the claims being made? (Remember, the more truly independent sources saying the same thing, the stronger the argument.) What are the credentials of the “experts” cited? Has the information been presented correctly and in an unbiased fashion? What sources does your source use? (Too many people merely parrot others’ findings.) Does the source stand to benefit in some fashion? Is the material (overly) simplistic?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 26, 2015 2:01:06 GMT
and remember: copying one person is plagiarism; copying many people is research.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 2, 2015 0:09:22 GMT
A specific example as to how Wilki can be hijacked; The entry for the Australian outlaw Ned Kelly called him a 'famous outlaw and homo'. (I edited this a year or so back)
Examples of how a small mistake can end up in 'official' sources. When talking about evolution text books used the example of the peppered moth, saying that as the industrial revolution and the smoke producing factories started to spread in Britain a dark coloured version become the predominant one. This, books said, was because the darker moths stood out less than their lighter counterparts against the soot-covered trees and hence fewer were eaten by birds.
The problem? This was bogus. While there are two colours of this type of moth the relative numbers of each type didn't change - probably because the moths were not living in heavily polluted areas. But this ended up in text books anyway, where it can still be found as an example of natural selection today.
Observation; When dealing with multiple sources do your best to make sure that they are not referencing the same material, or each other. There was a story on AMC about the Batman vs Superman film being split into two parts. Careful, as in two minutes of checking, showed that the original 'source' was an anonymous post on the net, most of the news outlets reporting this were using that single source and those that didn't were referencing those outlets that had. Likewise that story highlighted 'news' outlets twisting the story, in this case by reporting it as a 'rumor'...without bothering to note that they were the ones trying to start that rumor by calling it such - or again using others who had reported the story as a reason for calling it such.
|
|
