[AUUG-Talk]: Personal Contributions - AUUG's Value Add

[Dave Horsfall]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, David J N Begley wrote:

> > Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether I do (especially 
> > since I've never worked in academia), what exactly is your objection 
> > to said process?
> 
> DavidN clearly wrote that his objection was to your use of the phrase, 
> "unsubstantiated source" - not to an academic process per se:
> 
>   "Your phrase 'unsubstantiated source' (to which I take objection)..."

Yes, and I'm still awaiting the reasoning for his alleged objection.

> > Everything you post is potentially reviewed by your peers, and after a 
> > while one forms an opinion as to the value of another's posts.  QED.
> 
> Mailing lists are no more or less "peer-reviewed" (unless heavily 
> moderated) than the Web - both require a degree of critical thinking and 
> cross-checking of sources.

Now we get to the nub of the matter; does anyone bother cross-checking web 
sources such as Google and Wikipedia etc?  Or does one blindly believe 
them?

> As you have correctly indicated, there is a level of trust involved - if 
> you trust the poster/publisher of information, it matters not whether 
> the information is distributed via mailing lists, the Web, Goodies Post 
> Office or stone tablet.

Nonsense; if said information is available via the web then there is (and 
has been, and always will be) the opportunity to "correct" it.  The 
mailing lists that I have personally archived, however, will be 
impregnable.

> > Nice try at drawing red herrings, but I'll be polite and assume that 
> > you merely misread what I wrote in the second paragraph from the top.  
> > *You*
> 
> Pot.call( &Kettle, "black" );

I'm afraid you're going to have to speak English if you wish to make a 
point, otherwise I'll assume that you have conceded.

-- Dave