Does anyone know any printed review of Utopia in any game journal/magazine?
If yes, please, post here who, when, number of journal, author, name of article.
It's urgent.
It's need for save the Utopia page on Wikipedia.
Does anyone know any printed review of Utopia in any game journal/magazine?
If yes, please, post here who, when, number of journal, author, name of article.
It's urgent.
It's need for save the Utopia page on Wikipedia.
Last edited by Vit; 31-10-2010 at 19:48.
the info that i am doing/tring to recover/edit/save is alot more urgent/importent then some wikipedia page...Originally Posted by Vit
if you want you can help me save/recove stuff like: guides , charts , survey , and etc from all ages
thats alot more importent...
Was that necessary bijo?
No its not, it doesnt fill any good function for the game while a wikipedia page might attract more people to game.the info that i am doing/tring to recover/edit/save is alot more urgent/importent then some wikipedia page...
if you want you can help me save/recove stuff like: guides , charts , survey , and etc from all ages
thats alot more importent...
Chance that someone will join utopia because of a poorly written wikipedian article? 0%
Chance that someone will beat me to the punch and your article will be deleted? 100%
Wikipedia is scum anyways, don't use it, don't promote it.
Just say "yes" and I'll go away.
Wikipedia is just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.
Source: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Stop listening to your school teachers. Wikipedia is just impossible to cite and that's why scholarly institutions don't accept it as a source.
He already said his english was poor and someone else if they wanted should correct whats wrong. Wikipedia is quite a good tool for finding sources and general facts.Chance that someone will join utopia because of a poorly written wikipedian article? 0%
Chance that someone will beat me to the punch and your article will be deleted? 100%
Wikipedia is scum anyways, don't use it, don't promote it.
First. Stop listening to the internet and use your brain!
You're doing little more than citing an article and, without a single thought, screaming QED!!!
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...438900a-s1.docWe chose fifty entries from the websites of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica on subjects that represented a broad range of scientific disciplines. Only entries that were approximately the same length in both encyclopaedias were selected. In a small number of cases some material, such as reference lists, was removed to bring the length of the entries closer together.
The study was over only 50 hand selected articles out of the "3 443 000+ articles" that wikipedia currently hosts.
http://www.wikipedia.org
That is hardly an accurate sampling, and the study clearly dismisses articles that would likely be poorly cited.
Furthermore, even after selectively choosing their articles the study did NOT conclude wikipedia was as accurate as Britannica, it concluded that wikipedia was LESS accurate than Britannica given the BEST POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.htmlAll told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.
Going further into the study reveals how immature it really is.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...438900a-s1.docWe are unable to reveal the identities of all of the reviewers as they originally participated in the study on an anonymous basis.
There is something to be said when someone doesn't want their name affiliated with a study. It's even greater when a great many people request their names not be reported.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...438900a-s1.docWe felt this represented 'everything Britannica had to say on the subject' – at least, everything we could find by a quick search of Britannica online, exactly the way a user would approach it.
Britannica was first, and foremost, a collection of hardcover books. If the patience of research is limited by the ability to effectively search for material on an internet source, rather than resort to actually looking it up. Then one can easily conclude that the extent of the research is hardly very thorough.
Worse is that it seems that they selected 50 articles, but only peer reviewed each article ONCE. Instead, this should have been done numerous times. THAT is the way peer review works, one article, 50 people. Not 50 articles 50 people.
Add on that it does not seem that these reviewers had any incentive in this matter. In fact,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...438900a-s1.docWere the reviewers required to provide backup for their decisions? A: No. It would have been simply too time consuming. The quality of the reviews varied, from brief to particularly zealous.
Tends to indicate that the reviews were not ALL of professional quality, regardless of the credentials of the reviewer. And given the concern about how long it would take to complete the study, one can also conclude that the "reviews" were done post-haste to form a conclusion and sell it to an audience.
See, simply posting a link does not actually mean that you've proven anything. It simply indicates that you have given your post no thought. You googled a phrase, posted a link, and claimed that you did something grand. That is the way wikipedia works, no actual reviews, no thought upon anything... just people randomly changing things and copying from other sites. (which, in turn copy from wikipedia).
Just say "yes" and I'll go away.
you can find some fact in Wikipedia ... but its mostly a collection of info that gets edit all the time and this is not facts!
yes my english is poor so what :P
the info that is on the wiki on utopia right now is so wrong on alot of stuff... and i am not going to tell or fix those mistakes...
the stuff/info that you can from the history list on the DP site or from the forum on utopia temple is
alot alot alot more right and reliable then this wiki page...
the background on the game from the history list is huge...(with all the links there ofc!!!)
http://charts.thedragonportal.eu/History.html
check this link b4 replying then write what ever you like....
plus he wrote "It's need for save the Utopia page on Wikipedia." he did not say anything about attract more people to game.
so i was reporing to the info that the wiki page gives which is very poor to the info on the the dragon portal and utopia temple
and as for "attract more people to game" i would say ... "wake up and smell the roses!!!" the wiki page wont help attract more people to game
i am just being realistic
Wrong
The only qualifications for the articles were that they needed to be roughly the same length. The point being that there were just as many opportunities for inaccuracies in both articles. With that being the only qualification for the articles, I can proudly give you the wrong stampThe study was over only 50 hand selected articles out of the "3 443 000+ articles" that wikipedia currently hosts.
That is hardly an accurate sampling and the study clearly dismisses articles that would likely be poorly cited.
Wrong
Again, WrongFurthermore, even after selectively choosing their articles the study did NOT conclude wikipedia was as accurate as Britannica, it concluded that wikipedia was LESS accurate than Britannica given the BEST POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES.
"That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia."
Wikipedia has <1 more mistake per article.
Going deeper, there were a total of 8 'serious errors', with 4 of those coming from both sources.
Also, best possible case? I think not. Best possible case would be pitting wikipedia's most accurate articles against Britannica's least accurate.
Has nothing to do with the validity of the study. Please stick to attacking the study.Going further into the study reveals how immature it really is.
There is something to be said when someone doesn't want their name affiliated with a study. It's even greater when a great many people request their names not be reported.
This has nothing to do with how extensive the research is. Valid information is either valid, or it's not.Britannica was first, and foremost, a collection of hardcover books. If the patience of research is limited by the ability to effectively search for material on an internet source, rather than resort to actually looking it up. Then one can easily conclude that the extent of the research is hardly very thorough.
The article was reviewed by experts in the selected field. Having a nuclear chemist review an article on pollination would be just as reliable as you or I reviewing it (assuming you aren't an expert on pollination)Worse is that it seems that they selected 50 articles, but only peer reviewed each article ONCE. Instead, this should have been done numerous times. THAT is the way peer review works, one article, 50 people. Not 50 articles 50 people.
These are all your own opinion of the study, and do nothing towards actually attacking the study and it's findings.Add on that it does not seem that these reviewers had any incentive in this matter. In fact,
Tends to indicate that the reviews were not ALL of professional quality, regardless of the credentials of the reviewer. And given the concern about how long it would take to complete the study, one can also conclude that the "reviews" were done post-haste to form a conclusion and sell it to an audience.
Speaking of giving your post no thought, you didn't say a single worthwhile thing in that whole wall of text and you posted the same link 4 times.See, simply posting a link does not actually mean that you've proven anything. It simply indicates that you have given your post no thought. You googled a phrase, posted a link, and claimed that you did something grand. That is the way wikipedia works, no actual reviews, no thought upon anything... just people randomly changing things and copying from other sites. (which, in turn copy from wikipedia).
Sloppy and unreliable are you sir.
Those are the qualifications, yes. But it implies that the articles were NOT chosen at random and WERE hand selected and as such is subject to researcher-bias.
Now, I do note that you did not refute what I said. My argument was that they did not have an accurate sampling. This is true. 50 article pales in comparison to the 3.44 million articles wikipedia currently hosts.
For the study to be accurate, a far greater percent should be checked, AND they should be checked regardless of length.
You're using statistics to minimize the errors... but the errors still exist. The claim was that Wikipedia was as accurate as Britannica, and the article's own statistics disprove it. This is irrefutable.
Those are not your findings, and it is also subjective given that the reviewers did not rank the severity of the errors.
And who would determine which article was best without fully reviewing both sources? This was a very small sampling with hand picked articles. Article length does not control the quantity of "factual errors." I could have a 24 page report with no factual errors, and a single page report that is utterly bogus. The fact remains that the "study" was done in such a manner that it could easily be swung either way.
This is actually quite significant. Anonymity has to be requested outside of the internet. If you feel that a study is invalid, and might thus discredit you for having your name affiliated with it... you would request anonymity. Besides, having prestigious names attached to a study gives it more credit.
In research, your name is a FRANCHISE.
The term "Quick Search" usually means the first 10 results queried; where 10 is the default number of results per page. If you want, you can pull google analytics up and read about the search habits of typical users. Unfortunately, the addition of more "search terms" does not increase the likelihood you'll find what you'd want. Due to the variety of vocabulary, people may use terms that are synonymous to other terms, but are not included in the page they're searching for. Though Google has added similar functionality, this also means that terms that exist in a particular manner (for example "i can juggle") will pull up unwanted results ("jugging"), thus requiring you to prefix the term with +.
The point I've made thus is simply that search engines are not perfected, and that the likelihood of getting a result varies based on the experience a user has in using a search engine (properly) and also the diligence said user is willing to put forth. Why should an article be excluded simply because the researcher would only check the first ten results, where as a user who was actually interested in a particular subject matter would likely peruse though a greater number of pages?
Now, the hard cover version of Britannica will often direct people to larger articles that contain the information they're looking for, but is not an independent article for that particular topic. The online version does not always do this, relying more on the search engine than indexing.
What this really means is that several reviews noted that certain topics were not covered. If "complete" articles are excluded in favor of smaller articles that give brief descriptions, that such errors would be far more likely... and that the accusations that wikipedia has more coverage is unfounded.
Incorrect. You might be an "expert" in the field... but that does not mean that you know everything about the field and thus are impervious to error.
However, your rebuttal doesn't have anything to do with my comment. As stated above, experts are not infallible and are subject to their own internal biases... so a "peer review" is conducted by having MANY reviewers covering ONE article.
Let's take Socrates and Plato. Now, Socrates never wrote anything himself and Plato wrote about Socrates... but Plato also used the IDEA of Socrates to convey his own arguments. We have no physical record of which Socrates is the Real Socrates, or even if there was a real Socrates... so various "experts of Socrates" might have differing opinions.
You can't consider History to be objective enough to rely on the views of a single omnipotent reviewer. Events that were seemingly minor at one point in History may have a greater role in a latter course, yet this role can be disputed by latter generations. Various discoveries have been made by some, yet accredited to others. Events that have been written of have had their factuality disputed... who can really say what the absolute truth is? And who can remain unaffected by their own judgments over various events?
Chemistry? Physics? These are continually changing fields, with a plethora of viewpoints over any subject matter. While the simplistic view of the world held by people such as yourself, is that the basics can be explained independent of the advanced material... this is quite untrue. Instead, various "false assumptions" are used to remove the discrepancies that occur... thus leading to an incomplete understanding.
The point is, you're trying to elevate a single individual to paradigmatic status, and thus excuse the study for the incompleteness.
Does it? If I were to pay you $2,000 for each error that you found in an article... would you thus work harder to fully review the article? "Quark" is actually labeled as having no errors... given the statistics that each article had at least one error, does it not strike you as unusual for someone to be unable to find a single fault in an article?
While these ARE NOT facts. They ARE logical assumptions, and point that should be discussed. Neither of us has the acrediation to actually dispute the validity of the reviewers findings... but what we can do is dispute if the findings were thorough... and there are strong indications that they were not.
I said more than you did. Your rebuttals are only a single sentence without any supporting arguments. Instead of debating, you're dismissing.
It's called citing my source. Something that wikipedia only does a few times, but rarely with consistency. Wikipedia requires that all material that is added be cited... this would mean that at the end of nearly every sentence should be a [1]. Rarely is this the case... and in many instances, even though the context of the sentence may be changed, the citation is not removed or updated (meaning that if two websites/people differ in opinion, they don't recite the new opinion).
Sloppy? Perhaps. Yet I was not the one who posted a study before reading it. Your initial claim that
Was disproved by the very article you posted. No matter how you twist the numbers, Wikipedia had more errors than Britannica. And no matter what pseudo-logic you use, that implies that Wikipedia is LESS accurate than Britannica.Wikipedia is just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.
The same numbers can be rearranged to show that Wikipedia has 31.7% more errors than Britannica. Can you still make claim that wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica based off of this study?
Just say "yes" and I'll go away.
The articles were not chosen by the people who reviewed them. They were chosen to maximize the article's subject with a person who could best evaluate the piece. That's entirely in the area of being as precise as possible, which is one of you're biggest issues with the study, yet you knock them for being thorough here...
Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have 3.4+ million articles, which is what it's being compared to. Even ignoring that, you don't actually know if the articles selected were an accurate sample. You're assuming their not and you may or may not be wrong with your assumptions.Now, I do note that you did not refute what I said. My argument was that they did not have an accurate sampling. This is true. 50 article pales in comparison to the 3.44 million articles wikipedia currently hosts.
For the study to be accurate, a far greater percent should be checked, AND they should be checked regardless of length.
No. There is data and there is significant data. Wikipedia having <1 more error per article is not significant data. What that says is you will have roughly the same amount of errors whether you're reading a wikipedia entry or an article in Encyclopedia Britannica.You're using statistics to minimize the errors... but the errors still exist. The claim was that Wikipedia was as accurate as Britannica, and the article's own statistics disprove it. This is irrefutable.
From the article posted:Those are not your findings, and it is also subjective given that the reviewers did not rank the severity of the errors.
"In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123."
It's clearly defined what a 'serious error' and how an error can either be one or not.
They would be reviewing both sources...unless I'm just misunderstanding you here.And who would determine which article was best without fully reviewing both sources? This was a very small sampling with hand picked articles. Article length does not control the quantity of "factual errors." I could have a 24 page report with no factual errors, and a single page report that is utterly bogus. The fact remains that the "study" was done in such a manner that it could easily be swung either way.
Just because a sample is small does not mean it's inaccurate. You have no kind of proof that the sample's in both cases were of any kind of quality.
Article length is important. Comparing a 50 page Britannica article with a 7 page Wikipedia article would not have been ideal and the same can be said for a 50 page Wikipedia article against a 7 page Britannica article.
Encyclopedia Britannica is highly honored. Experts in various fields had a 50/50 shot of making Britannica look less reliable than 'the joke' that most people consider wikipedia to be. Can you blame for them for deciding to use their right of anonymity? There could have been possible professional consequences for having been apart of the study, which is ridiculous.This is actually quite significant. Anonymity has to be requested outside of the internet. If you feel that a study is invalid, and might thus discredit you for having your name affiliated with it... you would request anonymity. Besides, having prestigious names attached to a study gives it more credit.
Search engines are designed to give you the best possible results. If you have to dig super-deep to find what you're doing it wrong. Simple as that.The term "Quick Search" usually means the first 10 results queried; where 10 is the default number of results per page. If you want, you can pull google analytics up and read about the search habits of typical users. Unfortunately, the addition of more "search terms" does not increase the likelihood you'll find what you'd want. Due to the variety of vocabulary, people may use terms that are synonymous to other terms, but are not included in the page they're searching for. Though Google has added similar functionality, this also means that terms that exist in a particular manner (for example "i can juggle") will pull up unwanted results ("jugging"), thus requiring you to prefix the term with +.
The point I've made thus is simply that search engines are not perfected, and that the likelihood of getting a result varies based on the experience a user has in using a search engine (properly) and also the diligence said user is willing to put forth. Why should an article be excluded simply because the researcher would only check the first ten results, where as a user who was actually interested in a particular subject matter would likely peruse though a greater number of pages?
Now, the hard cover version of Britannica will often direct people to larger articles that contain the information they're looking for, but is not an independent article for that particular topic. The online version does not always do this, relying more on the search engine than indexing.
What this really means is that several reviews noted that certain topics were not covered. If "complete" articles are excluded in favor of smaller articles that give brief descriptions, that such errors would be far more likely... and that the accusations that wikipedia has more coverage is unfounded.
You said earlier that article length has nothing to do with factual errors, yet here you make that assumption. Which side would you like to take on that? For now I'll suppose that you actually didn't mean to contradict yourself and just stick with your first statement that article length has nothing to do with the amount of errors on an article.
God is not available for peer reviewing wikipedia/britannica articles. So experts are the best we can do. As far as having many reviewers covering one article, the amount of errors found will drop off dramatically after the first expert has gone through it. Considering the amount of errors found on each article was relatively low for both sources, it's quite unlikely that more reviewers would have made any significant contributions to the study.Incorrect. You might be an "expert" in the field... but that does not mean that you know everything about the field and thus are impervious to error.
However, your rebuttal doesn't have anything to do with my comment. As stated above, experts are not infallible and are subject to their own internal biases... so a "peer review" is conducted by having MANY reviewers covering ONE article.
Umm...no. Even mild-philosophers can tell the difference between Plato's philosophy and Socrates' philosophy. There are massive differences between the two and there are only a few cases where it might be confusing about who's views are on display.Let's take Socrates and Plato. Now, Socrates never wrote anything himself and Plato wrote about Socrates... but Plato also used the IDEA of Socrates to convey his own arguments. We have no physical record of which Socrates is the Real Socrates, or even if there was a real Socrates... so various "experts of Socrates" might have differing opinions.
As far as if Socrates was real, it would be a ridiculous claim. Plato was not the only person to write about Socrates. For instance, Socrates' trial was written about by both Plato and Xenophon and possibly others that have not survived through time.
And yes, various experts may have different opinions. Opinions however are not facts and the only way they are subject to error is if they're submitted as facts.
Ignoring the subtle insults against me, none of that addresses how either of the sources are more accurate than the other. Both are subject to the fallacies that you've mentioned, however Wikipedia can be updated the instant new findings are discovered in any field of research. The same can not be said about Britannica.You can't consider History to be objective enough to rely on the views of a single omnipotent reviewer. Events that were seemingly minor at one point in History may have a greater role in a latter course, yet this role can be disputed by latter generations. Various discoveries have been made by some, yet accredited to others. Events that have been written of have had their factuality disputed... who can really say what the absolute truth is? And who can remain unaffected by their own judgments over various events?
Chemistry? Physics? These are continually changing fields, with a plethora of viewpoints over any subject matter. While the simplistic view of the world held by people such as yourself, is that the basics can be explained independent of the advanced material... this is quite untrue. Instead, various "false assumptions" are used to remove the discrepancies that occur... thus leading to an incomplete understanding.
The point is, you're trying to elevate a single individual to paradigmatic status, and thus excuse the study for the incompleteness.
There was just as much incentive to fully review the articles from both sources.Does it? If I were to pay you $2,000 for each error that you found in an article... would you thus work harder to fully review the article?
That is not at all what the statistics say about each article. In fact statistics don't say anything about individual articles."Quark" is actually labeled as having no errors... given the statistics that each article had at least one error, does it not strike you as unusual for someone to be unable to find a single fault in an article?
So to answer your question, no, I don't find that strange.
Assumptions are just fact's ugly cousin.While these ARE NOT facts. They ARE logical assumptions, and point that should be discussed. Neither of us has the acrediation to actually dispute the validity of the reviewers findings... but what we can do is dispute if the findings were thorough... and there are strong indications that they were not.
Both articles would have been reviewed just as thorough as the other, so this is a non-issue since the two are being compared.
You aren't presenting anything that needs more than a one sentence rebuttal. You're giving your opinions on facts being presented. If you'd like to start giving facts against the validity of the study, I'd be more than happy to debate.I said more than you did. Your rebuttals are only a single sentence without any supporting arguments. Instead of debating, you're dismissing.
Throwing links in between various pieces of text is not proper citation and being that it was the same link, it was unnecessary. Posting the link once and citing it as the source would have sufficed.It's called citing my source. Something that wikipedia only does a few times, but rarely with consistency. Wikipedia requires that all material that is added be cited... this would mean that at the end of nearly every sentence should be a [1]. Rarely is this the case... and in many instances, even though the context of the sentence may be changed, the citation is not removed or updated (meaning that if two websites/people differ in opinion, they don't recite the new opinion).
Again, there is data and there is significant data. Wikipedia having <1 more error per article than Britannica is not significant data.Sloppy? Perhaps. Yet I was not the one who posted a study before reading it. Your initial claim that
Was disproved by the very article you posted. No matter how you twist the numbers, Wikipedia had more errors than Britannica. And no matter what pseudo-logic you use, that implies that Wikipedia is LESS accurate than Britannica.
So I'm not allowed to use statistics to 'minimize' the errors, but you can use statistics to 'maximize' the errors?The same numbers can be rearranged to show that Wikipedia has 31.7% more errors than Britannica. Can you still make claim that wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica based off of this study?
Either way, yes, you can say that since you have all the data and how they came up with 31.7% more errors.
%'s are very deceptive.
this thread has too much white text on a black background. My eyes hurt.
Palem seriously arguing with hallo is a terrible waste of time. She apparently knows more about how to do a correct study than the experts, that made the nature (easily one of the most respected scientific magazines) study, that concluded that wikipedia has less errors than brittanica - I see her do this kind of thing in every subject - Apparently she quickly forms a very strong opinion about any subject and then never studies it again except for confirmation bias stuff[1].
Summarily it's a waste of time to argue with hallo because:
1. She doesn't know wtf she is talking about.
2. She's is so incompetent that she fails to see her mistakes[2].
3. She won't change her mind.
Curiously enough these points are very close to the definition of "idiot".
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect
ahh good read
Palem just completing smashing the sh*t out of Hallo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote