On august 24th, 2006,the International Astronomical Union finally decided on a definition for a planet. Until then, a planet had never been officially defined. The primary cause of the debate was the combination of new knowledge about pluto's actual size (it's much smaller than previously thought), and the discovery of 3 objects of similar size (one of which is an asteroid bigger than pluto, another is pluto's own moon). Depending on how the vote swung, we'd either have 12 planets or only 8. It was decided that pluto and the other 3 objects would be placed in a new class called "dwarf planets".
More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_planet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_redefinition_of_planet

We can barely reach our own moon, I don't think discussing what is a planet matters if we can't do anything with them. But it's better than talking, with details, of black holes and other theological matters.

By the way, I don't trust something that bases itself in such a candid idea as wikipedia.

Er... what? Arbitrary specifications like this one form our world. They define reality. And what do black holes have to do with religion? I hope you haven't taken Disney's 'The Black Hole' literally

As for Wikipedia, it's a source like any other. You should always be careful with your sources, because none can be fully trusted. Be it Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica.

Edited by Mr Creosote at 12:16 on August, 26th 2006

I mean, all those things are still away from our reach. It is no use talking about something that we can barely see.

With Wikipedia the problem I see is that it is based in the idea of that anybody who has information will share it through the wikipedia. But normally the people who fill the pages know about the thing as much as the person who reads. Also in other sources you can't know if the person who wrote knew anything, but it's more probably that someone who spent time making the work also spent some preparing it.

Common prejudice. See http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html.

Edited by Mr Creosote at 13:38 on August, 26th 2006

That both encyclopaedias are similars, is not good nor ill for any of them, as they both share a common problem. They talk about too many things for their authors to know well about them.

I always prefer getting a kind information from a source dedicated to that kind of information.

I can't vouch for the exact details in those wikipedia articles, but the announcement of the 8 planets decision can be independantly confirmed from dozens of sources from any search engine. As for the details of the articles, either the person writing them knew what they were talking about, or they spent an immense ammount of time & effort faking it.

Not all entries of an encyclopedia (online or not) are written by the same person

that's why I say authors in plural. But well, I'm too elitist to accept it anyway. As I said I preffer a source kept by one or few people dedicated to whatever they are talking about.

Very well wandrell, try these:
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9818-astronomers-lean-toward-eight-planets.html
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/08/24/plutos-out-of-the-planet-club/
http://www.space.com/pluto/
http://www.google.comsearch?q=8-planets+pluto

Sorry, but I don't get this position. Of course, this makes it easier to find information, that's an advantage. However, I don't see how this has to influence quality. If I wrote something about pseudo random number generation (and I know a lot about that topic), how would the quality differ whether I published it on Wikipedia or... here for example.

Or to put it the other way round: In a huge encyclopedia, each article can still have dedicated writers who don't care about the millions of other articles. They put all their time into this one topic. It happens a lot, especially if you're looking for scientific information in Wikipedia (and it's quite a good source for computer science, for example).

Edited by Mr Creosote at 15:06 on August, 28th 2006

The quality doesn't vary depending of where it is published, of course. The problem I find is that in an anonymous database like wikipedia there is no way to make sure their information is correct. If it is in his or her own webpage you can contact with the author, and probably also get the sources of the informacion, may it be bibliography, or better, the direct origin of it.

Anonynimicy and comunal work is good, but when for any reason there is no way for that product to be backed by it's creators I tend to consider it lower than something with clear origins. They may have worked more or less, and can be experts about the thing, but in their anonimate they can say whatever they wish, may it be correct or incorrect, and I do not have a way to make sure it is true if I doubt, other than looking in other places.

Cypherswipe, you didn't have to worry about giving me other sources, I didn't doubt what you said, and if so I would search for it, not trouble you expecting that you would search for them.

Most wikipedia articles have at least a brief bibliography, and scientific ones (like the pluto one) have huge bibliographies. Also, if you doubt something and there is no bibliography or source for it, you can post on the article's talk page about it. This can have 2 results: 1) someone changes the article (either including the source, or adding a "citation needed" tag) or 2) someone on the talk page will point you to a source.
While the creators of the articles can choose to be annonymous (bear in mind though that you can sign up, and many of the authors are not annonymous), the site is watched over by editors who make a strong effort to make sure that everything is accurate.

Personally, I find the idea of blowing off an entire site as useless just because not all of the articles include all their sources way beyond foolish. Try it before you throw it away. If you can tell me "I read 10 wikipedia articles and 5 of them were wrong", then I'll join your side, but if you just sit there and say "they're probably wrong" without even checking, then I'll sit here and laugh in your face.

Now this has nothing to do with a 'universal' source for all kind of knowledge (encyclopedia) versus specialized sources. In fact, we're back to square one: anonymous work versus 'identified' authorship. I refer you back to the Nature article

Well, not need to get offensive, each haves its tastes and with the diversity of sources that exist, and should exist, and the variety of personalities that exist, and should exist, not everybody like the same things. If I can get the same information from wikipedia than from other sources. Why can't I preffer the other sources?

My point is simply that it's extremely stupid to write off the whole site and assume that every article is wrong merely because some of the authors are annonymous. That's like saying "I'm never going to wear pants because some of them are pink". For all you know, every single article there might be 100% accurate (including all the annonymous ones), but you're condemning them all without even looking. Hell, for all you know, 99.5% of the articles might not be anonymous at all, you're just assuming that most of them are. Additionally, you can find out who posted what in the article by clicking the history link, and find out what qualifications they have by clicking their nick on the history page.


Bottomline: If you don't like wikipedia, it's your choice. However, I think the reason you give for not liking it just isn't valid. Condemning the site "site unseen" is no different than bigotry, you are condemning the site based on broadly generalized suspicions, rumors, and pure guesses instead of on actual facts.
It's clear however, that we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll use wikipedai, and you'll use encarta or worldbook or search engines, or whatever you prefer.


Also, your first post of: is in direct contrats to your more recent post of .
Your first post clearly implied that you didn't believe the whole 8 planets thing because the links I posted about it were from wikipedia.

Edited by Cypherswipe at 18:56 on August, 28th 2006

Well, I have used wikipedia more than once, so I'm not talking blindly. I find it a good way for getting oriented. And as far as I know every source of information everywhere can be wrong.

I disagree with one of the principles of wikipedia, that everybody can modify it as they wish and put wathever they desire. I may find some of the people who made the articles but that doesn't make me know what did they and what was modified by unknown persons. As I said every source is uncertain, but I do not wish to have even more uncertainty. I think it is better searching for ten different sources with clear origins than one that mixes them all and add a few more things, withouth knowing who made what and for what, only that somebody added something. Not all that add know about what they write about, and not all wish to add information, and the moderators can not know if everything is true or not.

I haven't made a deep analysis on wikipedia, so I can't give a strong support to what I say, but when you see a weak pilar you can know where the building may fall.

Of course I talk on possibilities, supossitions, beliefs and not in a deeply contrasted knowledge, which is very hard to achieve. But, even thought comparisions aren't good, I don't need to experience anarquism to know it doesn't work even thougt in theory it sounds good.

But anyway, there are more than just one way of getting knowledge (a thing that I dislike, instead of distrust, on wikipedia is how many people use it just because it saves searching), so if I do not like going one way I can go through another and get the same. If in the end both are the same not only it doesn't matter wich one I preffer, I make things quicker, jumping directly to the search of adittional sources to contrast, something that is still part of looking for information, not mattering if you use or not wikipedia.

In the end, I don't see why getting offended, if I dislike something you like, well, we both aren't the same person. If I'm sure something is wrong, and you are sure it is true, well, nobody can know what is true and what is false. If we disagree, or we decide it is not worth wasting time, or we try to convince each other.

But saying something is stupid for an opinion he defends... well, I may be stupid, I'm a person and far from perfect, but filled with prejudices like everybody. But laughing at somebody because you know you are right also is many, not very good, things and doesn't put you over him or her.

Edit: well, I critized the source, but not the information, as I already hear about it on the news. I should have added it to make things clearer. And also, if I do not trust a source I search for other, I wasn't telling you to show me the same thing on other place or else I wouldn't trust you, I was saying that I would look about it elsewhere.

Edited by Wandrell at 19:31 on August, 28th 2006

This is going in circles (again, see Nature article - if anything, it shows that the Wiki idea works better than anticipated and the 'classic' approach is less reliable than generally thought). A few sentences struck me, though.

I agree perfectly. Never trust just one single source!

Again, I couldn't agree more.

Edited by Mr Creosote at 20:04 on August, 28th 2006

I was getting perturbed in this thread because of the perception that you didn't believe the pluto business merely because the source I happened to post was wikipedia, and the fact that all your arguments against wikipedia seemed to be based purely on assumptions. At least some of that however, appears to be the result of miscommunication.

I don't take wikipedia as gospel, but I do find it to be quite accurate 95% of the time. When it is inaccurate, it tends to be pretty obviously so, a situation where as soon as you start reading you know not to bother going any further. Some of the details on some things might not be quite right, but usually they're small enough not to matter. If they do matter for what I'm doing, then I make sure to check more than one source for the info.
I agree that letting it be edited by anyone opens the door for problems, but it also results in something that is self-policed. With millions of people trickling through there every day, someone with more knowledge than the last guy invariably corrects the problem. The only problem I've really noticed is stub articles or a complete lack of articles on a given subject (both of which I runn into at least as much, if not more, when using more traditional research material).

In any case, as I was going to point out (but MC beat me to it), this is defnitely going in circles. I feel like I should be playing "you spin me right round baby, right round. like a record baby, right round round round". I was getting defensive because you seemed to be saying that the pluto business was a joke or scam, merely because I posted wikipedia links to it. I appologize if any of my posts came across as offensive, they weren't intended to be.

That's an excellent point, too. Whenever I come across obvious mistakes in Wikipedia, I just correct them. A recent example: It said The Settlers originally used a resolution of 320x200 which is obviously wrong, so I corrected it. On any other site, I would have to mail some random guy running it, and even then, the chance of it being corrected would have been very low.

Edited by Mr Creosote at 21:21 on August, 28th 2006