Wikipedia has become a popular resource in recent years but it is still open to be edited by anyone which means that many people with different opinions can edit the same article.
I've checked out the topic of Ancient Egypt from time to time on Wikipedia to see how the flow of discussion has progressed. There appears to be a raging battle between Eurocentrists and Afrocentrists with the page being edited on a daily basis.
What are your thoughts on the current page and Wikipedia as a resource? Does anyone here think it is worth the time to get involved with the editing on this page?
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It maybe worth the time for wiki to start from an organized point and keep things organized in a way to where the editing is under control.
I don't know if it's worth our time to even start or read a thread called "wiki ancient egyptian race article"
My initial reply was going to just be: "Why?"
Why as in, why start a thread devoted to wiki, again. I just don't see it being a good time investment in the long run.
All that said, I've seen it improve, and regress, but to where i see a clear way to help organize the page to give shady characters less "weasle room" to be sly, or trivial. I've just never felt like taking the time to go to their talk page and sort them out.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Why as in, why start a thread devoted to wiki, again. I just don't see it being a good time investment in the long run.
The reason I think it is relevant to atleast address this issue is because of Wiki's popularity.
Type Ancient Egypt into Google. A Wikipedia article on Ancient Egypt is the 3rd article that comes up.
It could be a potentially great place to get some of our info out into the mainstream however I am cautious about getting involved because of the nature of the editing. Contributions are constantly getting deleted by biased individuals and I could imagine the heated debates over contributions being a headache.
I just wanted to know how other posters felt about Wikipedia.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was deeply involved with editing that page for over a year. To prevent the spread of misinformation you basically have to safe guard it daily, provoking what they call "edit wars".. I can indeed attest to the fact that there has been great progress since the state it was in since I first came across it, but I personally don't have the energy to continue with that project. I do encourage others however, to take on the task... I feel I've done my part though.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: I was deeply involved with editing that page for over a year. To prevent the spread of misinformation you basically have to safe guard it daily, provoking what they call "edit wars".. I can indeed attest to the fact that there has been great progress since the state it was in since I first came across it, but I personally don't have the energy to continue with that project. I do encourage others however, to take on the task... I feel I've done my part though.
Those edit wars look like alot of work. It's like people are constantly sabotaging each other on there.
There are some good sources on there including info from the book Egypt in Africa.
I think the page could benefit from a shift in focus to the bio-cultural affinities of the Ancient Egyptians rather than fixating on Race. The population history page needs some work. All of the references are Anti-Afrocentric suggesting that someone has an axe to grind.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said on the last thread of the same topic: Why bother??!! Then again, since alot of people use Wiki, it is basically an info-war-- accurate information against misinformation.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As I said on the last thread of the same topic: Why bother??!! Then again, since alot of people use Wiki, it is basically an info-war-- accurate information against misinformation.
You answered your own question, Djehuti.
Wikipedia is the #1 resource for info online.
The only thing holding me back is that I imagine it being very time consuming and frustrating to fight to have info posted there but the truth is anything written there will get alot more exposure than anything written on a message board.
A message board is a great place to organize thoughts and info but webpages get alot more exposure.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation
Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia compiled by a distributed network of volunteers, has often come under attack by academics as being shoddy and full of inaccuracies. Even Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldn’t use it for class projects or serious research.
Speaking at a conference at the University of Pennsylvania on Friday called “The Hyperlinked Society,” Mr. Wales said that he gets about 10 e-mail messages a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has gotten them into academic hot water. “They say, ‘Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia’” and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. But he said he has no sympathy for their plight, noting that he thinks to himself: “For God sake, you’re in college; don’t cite the encyclopedia.”
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Citing Wikipedia itself as a credible source is a bad idea. The articles are only as reliable as the sources cited. If the source isn't credible the info isn't good.
However what I'm interested in is the exposure that good info can get.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The thing is well educated people like ourselves know that Wiki is not a good academic source, the question is how many laypeople know the same fact??
I myself cite wiki in this forum when I'm lazy, but at least I'm able to discern which info is accurate and which is not. But in academic work I never use the stuff as any good student knows.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, by "ourselves" that excludes openasses such as YOU. LOLPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I don't find Wikipedia any less reliable than most Euro sources. It all depends on the topic. There are topics in the sciences and social sciences that Wikipedia does a good job on.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikipedia is great for non-controversial articles as people have time to do the research and refine any mistakes or inaccuracies. The sources are usually in alignment on the issue. In other instances, the edit wars and agenda campaigns get in the way of the spread of honest scholarship. This is with controversial articles but with any wiki (public project) every article is vulnerable to misinterpretation from lay persons or corruption from vandals. The point is, you never know what you're getting is accurately reported unless you double check the primary and secondary sources.
^Which goes to question, why not refer to these sources to begin with? Wikipedia for me is a convenience. I use it to quickly find references for things I already know or to refresh my memory on things I already have some foundation in. I hardly ever browse for the purpose of learning NEW information.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I decided to go ahead and give editing the page a shot.
The other editors were receptive of my contributions for the most part. I made several edits across the page but my main contributions so far are the "Modern Scholarship" section, the paragraph on Keita in the DNA studies section and a short paragraph on Christopher Ehret's research in the language element section.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: I decided to go ahead and give editing the page a shot.
The other editors were receptive of my contributions for the most part. I made several edits across the page but my main contributions so far are the "Modern Scholarship" section, the paragraph on Keita in the DNA studies section and a short paragraph on Christopher Ehret's research in the language element section.
Commendations to you. I could instantly see the places that you've editted! What a difference... it still needs a LOT of work, but brilliant work... It would be good to get a collaborative effort here...
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: [qb] I decided to go ahead and give editing the page a shot.
The other editors were receptive of my contributions for the most part. I made several edits across the page but my main contributions so far are the "Modern Scholarship" section, the paragraph on Keita in the DNA studies section and a short paragraph on Christopher Ehret's research in the language element section.
Commendations to you. I could instantly see the places that you've editted! What a difference... it still needs a LOT of work, but brilliant work... It would be good to get a collaborative effort here...
Thanks.
I agree. It would be great if others got involved in the editing. There are so many good sources on Egyptsearch that could be getting more exposure on Wiki.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
I agree. It would be great if others got involved in the editing. There are so many good sources on Egyptsearch that could be getting more exposure on Wiki. [/QB]
Exactly.. It won't hurt anything and is more beneficial than having your ideas lost in a clutter of threads that are almost impossible for the average person to navigate through. As Morpheus is aware of, I've made some recent additions as well. Contributions are always welcome.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
In case anyone is still interested in editing Wikipedia I should inform you that they have LOCKED the article and reverted 4 months of work because one of the editors complained to the Admins about "original research."
It's like the Gestapo over there.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: In case anyone is still interested in editing Wikipedia I should inform you that they have LOCKED the article and reverted 4 months of work because one of the editors complained to the Admins about "original research."
It's like the Gestapo over there.
Wikipedia FTL. A classic example of the most belligerent contributors controlling the spread of information.
Not that I blame the Wikipedia people for wanting to lock the article---there was probably a horrible melee there anyway.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm starting to learn why Wikipedia editors have such a bad reputation. I and several other editors recently got BANNED from the Ancient Egyptian race thread. The reason given was "Point of view pushing fringe theories" ("Afrocentrism" i.e. the Admins don't want all of our reliable sources on that article). It didn't take long to discover that there was a mass conspiracy involving several Admins and editors to have this done. The page has now been unlocked allowing the Eurocentrists control of the article.
There was also a conspiracy to get Keita's Wikipedia bio deleted but I thwarted that one. For now...
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morpheus - They have ALL control of the artifacts - which they change the features of shamelessly, and which they will switch from different time periods - I often see statues of White people from the Greek period displayed as if it was from the "real" Egyptian period, and they have control of how and when their lies are disseminated. But we have a mission - the truth.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is that unlike all the photoshopped stuff you guys use here on egyptsearch? Nobody believes AE's were black africans except a few radical blacks in the west. In fact most academics think it is a joke. The debate goes on here, not in the classroom.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"TheAmericanPatriot" is NOT an authority regarding Nile valley civilisation; to pander to his dogma is to inflate his ego, he is of NO consequence, he is an intransigent buffoon.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Trust me when I say that noone takes Patriot seriously.
He proved himself to be a ignorant racist in the Other thread when I posted one Pick of an Egyptian and he called it a Caucsoid even though the face had clearly African Features.
Patriot is just an fool that you toy with until you just get bored with him.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No democrat has won a single state wide office here since 1994. Most of the races are not even close. Obama was crushed here. Shows you just how smart Texans are.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am already saved King. You guys are afroccentric radicals. In 40 years in the classroom I can count the number of times these questions have come up on one hand. Nobody believes this stuff but you guys. by all means, help yourself.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
You are by no way a real Professor. You claimed that pic showed A Caucasaisn and not a African.
Now "SHOW" us how that pic is a Caucasian, no more beating around the Bush.
No one belives you are a real professor, no real professor would be as stupid and as biased as "YOU". How can a statue that shows an obvious African yet you claim it shows a Caucasian. Please show us how. You are by far one of the Dumbest posters on Egypsearch. You are really no different from your buddy Kemp, who no one responds to his nonsense.
No Peace for you
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
King, You are like the person who claims they have seen a UFO asking people to prove they have not. The burden of proof is on you. You are the one making wild radical statements that ancient egyptians were negroid. It is so goofey the argument has been restricted to places like egyptsearch. First, in the above post you made a serious blunder. You distinguished between a caucasian and an african. The overwhelming majority of north Africans are caucasians. These careless errors and the complete lack of ANY understanding of historiography render your arguments invalid before you even begin. What we have here is a race car in a lot full of go carts. When you allow me to teach you how to do proper research you will make some progress, until then your posts waste everyone's time.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Wild and Radical statements are made by YOU. Now please stop playing the Fool and show us how this Statue:
Is not really a African but a Caucasoid. Please show us "Professor(Not)" your expertise on this forum and show us what seperates a Caucasian from a African. The rest of your post was just hot air not worth reading.
No peace for you
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: TheAmericanPatriot
You are by no way a real Professor. You claimed that pic showed A Caucasaisn and not a African.
Now "SHOW" us how that pic is a Caucasian, no more beating around the Bush.
No one belives you are a real professor, no real professor would be as stupid and as biased as "YOU". How can a statue that shows an obvious African yet you claim it shows a Caucasian. Please show us how. You are by far one of the Dumbest posters on Egypsearch. You are really no different from your buddy Kemp, who no one responds to his nonsense.
No Peace for you
If you know this, why then do you incessantly discourse with the vainglorious charlatan??
His opinion is inconsequential, his dispositions intractable; to continue discussion with him concerning Nile Valley civilisation, is to engage with the wretched manifestation of dogma.
Leave him be; when a person insouciantly states that Queen Tiye's bust looks "caucasian", then there is NO use in discoursing with him, the neurotic is ineducable.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
I intend to report these Admins for abuse. We will see how deep the hostility towards this subject is within the Wikipedia Admin hierarchy. I suspect that it is only a few rogue Admins with an axe to grind who are trying to censor the material on that page.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
King, You are beyond help and cannot learn. Sudaniya is right, you should ignore me.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: TheAmericanPatriot
You are by no way a real Professor. You claimed that pic showed A Caucasaisn and not a African.
Now "SHOW" us how that pic is a Caucasian, no more beating around the Bush.
No one belives you are a real professor, no real professor would be as stupid and as biased as "YOU". How can a statue that shows an obvious African yet you claim it shows a Caucasian. Please show us how. You are by far one of the Dumbest posters on Egypsearch. You are really no different from your buddy Kemp, who no one responds to his nonsense.
No Peace for you
If you know this, why then do you incessantly discourse with the vainglorious charlatan??
His opinion is inconsequential, his dispositions intractable; to continue discussion with him concerning Nile Valley civilisation, is to engage with the wretched manifestation of dogma.
Leave him be; when a person insouciantly states that Queen Tiye's bust looks "caucasian", then there is NO use in discoursing with him, the neurotic is ineducable.
What is the meaning of debate if You think all I am is cantankerous. Are you not supposed to have people explain what they mean in there posts.
All you ever do on these forums is insult others and make snide remarks to people who aren't even debating you.
If I am Cantankerous, What do we make of you and your Jew fear. You bring up Jews in almost all your posts. You really also seem to love sticking up for your buddies Patriot and AryanEgypt, when I ask them to define what they are saying, I can always count on you to come in with an ignorant statement directed at me. Why you feel the need to attack posters who ask racists to define what they mean is beyond me but It will not stop me from having people like Patriot substantiate there worthless posts that have nothing but there opinion in them.
Patriot made the remark that a Clear African statue was in fact a pic of a Caucasoid. I asked him to substantiate his post which he clearly has not done. All he has done is beat around the bush and hope for someone like Sudaniya to bail him out of his obligation. I will be watching and see how long it takes people to respond to Patriot, If I see no one responding to his post, then I will do the same.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
King, You are indeed the 'King' when it comes to providing noi evidence for the posts you put up. I asked over and over again for historiographic evidence on the kemet issue and you did not evn understand what i was talking about.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Just to let you know, King is WHITE and by no means an 'Afrocentric'. He is also a young kid but apparently he has more a fully functioning braing than YOU the self-professed professor in accepting FACTS like the black African idientity of ancient Egypt while you deny them!! Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only a moron believes in a black egypt, you know better. You do not present facts, never have. Don't take my word for it. Any academic will tell you that what i am asking for is the only way adequate research can be done. It is not done here because the desired results could not then be reached.
Save your cheap insults for someone else, I am not impressed.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And again exactly what is so "moronic" about a black Egypt. Egypt is IN Africa and it IS African!!
I and others have provided countless evidence from ancient portraits obviously showing the Egyptians as blacks to literally hundreds of scientific studies on their remains. What other evidence is there??
It is YOU who is the moron and the worse kind-- one who is purposely a moron by DENYING the truth and all the facts that come with it! Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is this a debate forum, or is it a love inn?
Excuse me but I thought all activities Christians engaged in is supposed to be informed by love, not hate or malice which you seem to be wrapped up in. Face it King, you are the biggest hypocrite god ever created. You are no Christian. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic