Identity Verified Thinker in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology
Mike Sutton
Mike Sutton
Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.
Posted in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology

Conversation About Facts with a Wikipedian

Mar. 6, 2016 5:11 pm
image and PatrickMatthew.comAttribution

Join the Veracity Revolution. Blame it on Google and Follow Supermythbuster on Twitter

Last night, on Twitter, I had a conversation with a Wikipedian editor who was involved in a Wikipedia training session. I informed her of the fact Wikipedian editors are systematically deleting the significant fact that Charles Darwin blatantly lied in 1860 by denying that any naturalists had read Patrick Matthew's full prior-published theory of natural selection before he replicated it without citing Matthew.

Click: Here - On Twitter to see the telling conversation.

Author's Favorite
Bob Butler
March 7, 2016 at 11:33 am
Google Generation Graples With Valuing Information

Well that was wild... and revealing. It is interesting that as we start to interact with the first generation that primarily sourced their information from Google and the like, we see how their incredibly convenient access to incredible amounts of information may have undermined their ability to sort out what it is that makes information valuable... another version of the old, things that come easy are not valued.

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
March 7, 2016 at 11:51 am

Hi Bob

In this blog post, and in the one where I relate how Howard Minnick and I Gonzoed the blog-crowd on the Daily Telegraph Newspaper blogsite with facts about Darwin and Matthew, my motivation is simply to capture - for future scholars - the current atmosphere of the "state of denial" of the wider public to incontrovertible facts, which they find uncomfortable. From this evidence we can see how it is that Darwin scholars have the benefit of a protective shield of public apathy towards and and rejection of the fact that it is proven Darwin was in fact a liar.

The Wikipedian's question: "What is a fact, versus what is accepted common knowledge?" is an incredible example of the point you make. And the foggy thinking that the fact a Twitter comment has been published is not a significant fact in a conversation on Twitter about what a "fact" is, is demonstration of a rather disturbing inability to reason - to say the least. Here then we have an insight - at last - into why Wikipedia editors (administrators) are so infuriatingly irrational and biased in their decision-making.

Latest Ebooks