Talk:Robert McHenry

message: McHenry's article certainly is provacative. Among the things I think he fails to understand is that people using the internet for research expect to have to think critically about the veracity and objectivity of the information they find. If you are looking for authority, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is vastly preferred to the Wikipedia. What Wikipedia shows us is that people are looking for qualities besides authority in their information -- qualities such as accessibility, usefulness, and currency. For these qualities, Wikipedia is unexcelled.
Second there is the question of what information matters. The Britannica must weigh the desire to preserve information with the need to control expansion of its volumes. The Wikipedia does not suffer from rampant expansion. McHenry uses the example of the entry on Alexander Hamilton to make his point. What if we were to compare the entries on American Idol, or Banksy, or even Robert McHenry himself? The Britannica is useless, but the Wikipedia preserves such ephemera.
Finally, it must be noted that the lack of authority in Wikipedia is not directly linked to its accuracy. When one cites the Wikipedia, even reproducing an error of fact, the reader is alerted to the non-authoritative status of that fact, just as McHenry says. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Facts are always involved in conflict, as the incalculable revisions to the Britannica itself demonstrate. An error that slips past their esteemed editors will likely BECOME truth saving a monumental effort of revision. The beauty of the Wikipedia is that conflict is transparent and accessible. This is the social construction of truth. Authority is an expedient end-around to settle dispute, but it is not the only means, and it does no guarantee of social value. --Dystopos 22:46, 17 November 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: McHenry's article

message: erm shouldn't the quote be in wikiquotes?? Davelane 00:40, 18 November 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  McHenry's quote 

message: "We do not pretend that the Britnnica is immune to error"
"On the area of Israel and territories: Mr. Landau attempted to read some meaning into a simple mistake. The total area of occupied territories is given as "more than 7,000 square miles" instead of the correct "more than 7,000 square kilometers." This error will, of course, be corrected at the earliest possible opportunity. (The mistake is quite substantial. 7,000 sq. km. is 2,700 sq. miles. J.P., ED. )"
"On the article "Zionism": Mr. Landau's criticism is in part appropriate, in part a quibble. The sentence he quoted errs in seeming to place the whole responsibility for the movement of Arab population out of the new state of Israel on the new state itself."
"We do not know if Khalidi was a member of the Palestine National Council at the time this article was originally commissioned, which was more than 25 years ago (Ochsenwald revised it in 1989). But his political activities, like those of all our contributors, are not of primary interest to us. What is of primary interest is the quality of scholarship, and as to that Mr. Landau offered nothing beyond ad hominem remarks."
:Thanks for a good retort Rob - Executive editor, Ted Pappas: "one of the administrators over seeing the political coverage openly encourages people to vote for John Kerry" 
"On Moslems and Jerusalem: The article offers an incomplete discussion of the Moslem view of Jerusalem, and will be revised."
"On the law enacted in 1985 by the Knesset: Britannica has it wrong, and the passage will be corrected."
"On the article "Jerusalem:" The criticisms of the article are supported by sources we have consulted, and the article will be revised accordingly."
"ON JEWISH IMMIGRATION: The matter of Jewish immigration (in the early 1940s) is apparently exaggerated in the article, and this will be amended."
==="The 'Encyclopedia Britannica' admits some mistakes" The Jerusalem Post April 30, 1993===
"like the statement that Jaffa was founded by the Romans. McHenry admits 'most sources agree with your point.'"
"also concedes her point that 'Muhammad issued the Qibla Manshuka only two years after the 'hegira,' replacing Mecca for Jerusalem in Moslem prayer. Since then, Moslems turn their backs on Jerusalem when praying and face Mecca instead.' 'The passage (in the Britannica) is misleading and will be rephrased," McHenry promises.'
"Willers asserted that saying "the Jewish quarter (in the walled part of Jerusalem) suffered in the 1947-8 fighting" is a gross understatement. In responding, McHenry indulges in yet another understatement, agreeing that 'the term 'suffered' seems insufficient.'"
Anyways I'm tired of copying all his half hearted acknowledgments - there are more.  Why can't you be more forgiving Rob? 
Lotsofissues 03:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Letter to the Editor - Robert McHenry - The Jerusalem Post May 14, 1993

message: "like the statement that Jaffa was founded by the Romans. McHenry admits 'most sources agree with your point.'"
"also concedes her point that 'Muhammad issued the Qibla Manshuka only two years after the 'hegira,' replacing Mecca for Jerusalem in Moslem prayer. Since then, Moslems turn their backs on Jerusalem when praying and face Mecca instead.' 'The passage (in the Britannica) is misleading and will be rephrased," McHenry promises.'
"Willers asserted that saying "the Jewish quarter (in the walled part of Jerusalem) suffered in the 1947-8 fighting" is a gross understatement. In responding, McHenry indulges in yet another understatement, agreeing that 'the term 'suffered' seems insufficient.'"
Anyways I'm tired of copying all his half hearted acknowledgments - there are more.  Why can't you be more forgiving Rob? 
Lotsofissues 03:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "The 'Encyclopedia Britannica' admits some mistakes" The Jerusalem Post April 30, 1993

message: The lack of "authoritative blessing" in Wikipedia (and in the Internet in general) is a tremendous benefit: it encourages skeptical thinking.
For many years we tended to take whatever verbiage [insert printed encyclopedia] spewed out as definitive and authoritative. It's clearly not, because the authors and editors are just as human as anyone else, subject to personal whim. But back in the bad old days when it was difficult to find alternative sources of information, one tended to go with whatever came first to hand. And without a background in skepticism, one tends to take information at face value.
Encyclopedias have been obsolete for a while now, thanks to the WWW and search engines. While the information provided by the Web is often inaccurate, sometimes in very subtle ways, this fact is much more obvious to anyone who's spent any time at all using it. If you have nothing to contrast against, an encyclopedia article has to be taken as gospel.
This critical approach is valuable in all areas of life, not just surfing the web. 
Furthermore, the lack of ability to prove one's identity is a blessing in disguise. It means average human beings without credentials or formal academic learning can make valuable contributions. It also means kooks with four PhDs can be called as such.
It's difficult to get out of the "academic mindset": that only certain people are qualified to contribute academically, and the ones with the most formal learning are most qualified. The reality is that everyone is qualified to contribute, but not everyone knows their own limitations; that's what editors are for.
Wikipedia will struggle with this for a while, and will eventually come down to two choices. One is to only allow articles to be edited by people who have proven themselves in some way, which will inevitably involve checking identities, educational status, etc. The other is to learn to stop worrying and love the bomb, and accept that janitors will have to spend time cleaning up after mistakes. 12.103.251.203 18:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The implicit value of uncertain definitions 

message: The other day, when discussing group consensus here at Wikiland with someone, I used the term "Wikithink."
Not having heard this word before, and wondering how clever I had been to use it, I did a Google search.  One of the "hit" pages had a reference to Robert McHenry's article, The Faith-Based Encyclopedia.  It was a clever title, so I read it.
I listened to his arguments, which were a bit self-serving, and I've also read the pros and cons of Wikipedia at this site.   What McHenry should have done was log in and try his hand at editing and learning the culture at WP.  He should have gotten involved with some of the better editors here, and edited some of the more serious articles.  After logging some time and effort, he would have learned something important:
There are how many articles at Wikipedia world-wide -- over a million?  Yes, many of these are short stubs, poorly-written rough drafts, or trifling little pieces of crap.  They can't be relied on, but no one who recognizes reasonably good writing would.
But the more specialized, advanced, controversial or important a subject is, the more likely it is being continually being "watched" by very talented and motivated people who have taken ownership of every phrase, every choice of word, every transition and every point of fact.
This means that the more trifling or arcane the subject, the less likely it has received serious attention, but also less likely anyone will read it, rely on it, or expect it to be serious.  The more likely it is to be searched and relied on, the more likely someone here has paid serious attention to it.  They are directly correlated, and this usually is overlooked by critics, because they haven't worked here.
It's the "watching" -- the watchlist -- that is the key to Wikipedia.  The watchlist is our nose -- it's really a snifflist.  Everyone watches the work most important to them, and, if you're like me, you pore over every single revision, if, for no other reason, to make sure that some boob in a smelly T-shirt hasn't edited over that lovely phrase you polished for half an hour.
McHenry made an bathroom analogy to Wikipedia, or should I say, Wikipeedia.  I'll make another analogy:
Wikipedia is not like a bathroom, it is more like a research facility with thousands of cubicles, one for each area of study.  Some cubicles are visited more often and more heavily than others.  Some get visited heavily only during article's initial creation.
And every cubicle is small.
When you walk into the cubicle for, say, Ann Coulter or Israel -- pieces which are being scrutinized by zealots from every part of the political spectrum -- and someone walks in and lets a big one rip, believe me, someone is going to notice it, and they're going to say something.  No one around here is afraid to say, "Who farted?"  And using our watchlists, we can work in one cubicle and still keep our noses in 100 others.  We don't even have to be in the room when it happens.  We just half to pause in our editing once in a while, stick our heads out, and sniff.
There's no way to emit something nasty here, where it really matters, without its being noticed.  The most important cubicles are constantly occupied or monitored.  Each is supplied with a can of Country-Fresh Revert.  Bad edits don't leave germs, they don't spread disease, and they don't require disinfectant.  We don't have to worry about Wikistink.  Bad edits are just farts in the wind.
-- Paul Klenk 12:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Who farted?"  A Response to Robert McHenry 

message: Traditionally the Wikipedia has not shyied away from contoversy.  It is not a violation of NPOV to report on controversy and the contentestants.--Carl Hewitt 22:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wikipedia does not shy away from controversy 

message: ... not very good. Is it terribly hard to find background info on this guy? Heck, this article doesn't even have a proper lead! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably is. Editors of EB are not exactly prominent in the broader scheme of things. Chicheley 21:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is... 

message: I removed this entry from the "References" section:
:* Q&A: Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Founder, Uncorrected transcript provided by Morningside Partners of a September 25, 2005 interview, where Wales discusses how McHenry is personally.
If this interview has any information to add to a neutral, encyclopedic article on McHenry, then I suggest using it as a reference first, then listing the citation for the material used -- not just linking to what amounts to hearsay. --Dystopos 14:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wales interview transcript 

message: "In essence, McHenry's criticism is that Wikipedia is operating on what he believes is a flawed premise; that allowing anyone to edit articles, whether or not they are knowledgeable, will lead to evolution of article quality."
Anybody take that sentence seriously?  Bueler?  Bueler? 69.151.211.174 19:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what point you are making. If it is that the sentence is incorrect, I suggest you have not understood what McHenry was saying. Alan Pascoe 14:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The article itself testifies to the truth of McHenry's charge

message: The following section needs clarifying as the paragraph is implying that he implied that ID and wikipedia were linked by logical fallacy, which is different from the footnote(refrence)  
"McHenry's criticism of Wikipedia for lacking a logical mechanism for success, was consistent with his distaste for things lacking a rational explanation, which has been indicated particularly by his criticism of Intelligent Design (ID). McHenry has argued that ID is not a theory in the scientific meaning of the word, because it is not based on evidence, it does not generate predictions, and thus cannot be tested.[18] He has described ID as anti-science, because it begins with conclusion, that some unknown things are unknowable, and then is supported by selected evidence.[19] McHenry has argued that science is the engine of society and the root of economic success. He believes that ID supporters want to stop the engine, not just for themselves, but for everyone else. He views the support of politicians for ID as particularly dangerous.[20]"
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.47.226 (talk • contribs) 
:It wasn't my intention to imply a linkage. I was drawing a parallel between McHenry's comment in this "Faith-Based Encyclopedia" article, in which he argued faith in a non-rational mechanism was required, with the comments he has made in articles about ID. I'll reword the first sentence. Alan Pascoe 20:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: In 1998, McHenry wrote the book How to Know, in which he explored the questions of what we can know and how we know that we know it.
Sounds very vague and blurby. Is it a popular book about epistemology or something? Qwertyus 01:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's what the publisher released about it. I have the book, but I have not yet read it. In the introduction, McHenry specifically states that the book is not about epistemology. Alan Pascoe 20:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to Know 

message: The "that anyone can edit" in "a free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is more like part of Wikipedia's tag line than an NPOV description of what it is. In fact, it's a mild factual inaccuracy. How about replacing it with "open content" like in Wikipedia (the article)?
(We wouldn't allow Google to be "a search company that thinks you shouldn't be evil" :p) 75.67.128.117 (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  that anyone can edit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Robert McHenry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930182708/http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v48/i30/30b00501.htm to http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v48/i30/30b00501.htm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111504A
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Robert McHenry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927080425/http://www.howtoknow.com/BOL1.html to http://www.howtoknow.com/BOL1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927080452/http://www.howtoknow.com/contragates.html to http://www.howtoknow.com/contragates.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v48/i30/30b00501.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060317215107/http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=051905A to http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=051905A
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060317215148/http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=060105D to http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=060105D
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060317215122/http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=081005E to http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=081005E
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060527071058/http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=032205B to http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=032205B
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060317215055/http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062905F to http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062905F
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060317155433/http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011006B to http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011006B
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051229201839/http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=121305E to http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=121305E
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209143550/http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/free_issues/issue_02/fud_based_encyclopedia/ to http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/free_issues/issue_02/fud_based_encyclopedia/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060317150953/http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=122205A to http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=122205A
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060317151031/http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010206D to http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010206D
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified