It is currently June 23rd, 2018, 8:49 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 5:54 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:29 pm
Posts: 64
Has anyone out there ever seen a 15 foot atrox? Read this!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_l ... _the_world

This was sent to me as proof rattlesnake grow larger than 8 feet!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 6:02 am 

Joined: June 27th, 2010, 2:42 pm
Posts: 138
Location: Everywhere USA
I never believe any stories of a rattlesnake over 13 feet......just dosnt happen.

DBD


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 6:15 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:14 pm
Posts: 1019
Location: Pacific Northwest
Well I am glad they straightened that out! It's also good to know that indigo snake is not another large snake and after king cobra and king snake they are only other snake to be eating other snakes :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 6:40 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Posts: 2388
Location: Delmarva
That was clearly written by somebody very smart. What other proof do you need? :roll: :roll:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 7:49 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:38 am
Posts: 372
Amazing that the largest retic changed from 30 to 33 ft in the time it took him to finish the article.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 11:02 am 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:37 pm
Posts: 1207
Location: Ft. Smith, Arkansas
Wow. Good thing kings are known to eat ball pythons too... I was wondering why I've seen more kings and less wild ball pythons this year... hha


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 11:17 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 9:06 am
Posts: 742
Location: Montana
Unreal... it's amazing the sorts of factual information you can find on the internet... /sarcasm.

-Cole


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 11:39 am 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:01 am
Posts: 244
The fact that "King" appears in the name means that whatever snake that name is attached to, it eats other snakes.

I did not know this.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 12:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:26 pm
Posts: 689
Location: Gainesville, FL
Obviously!

-Jake


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 1:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Posts: 3522
It's a wiki entry...which means that anyone can edit it. If you don't like the answer, log in and fix it.



Cole Grover wrote:
Unreal... it's amazing the sorts of factual information you can find on the internet... /sarcasm.


Or in books, or in magazines, or when you're hanging out with your friends...

I don't see the internet as any more error-prone than any other way that people get information. The good thing about the internet is that when you see something wrong, it is much much easier to do a quick search and get the real facts.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 2:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 9:06 am
Posts: 742
Location: Montana
jonathan wrote:

I don't see the internet as any more error-prone than any other way that people get information. The good thing about the internet is that when you see something wrong, it is much much easier to do a quick search and get the real facts.


Nah... I've got to disagree with you here. The ease of "publication" and preponderance of incorrect or partially correct information found on the internet make it extremely difficult to "do a quick search and get the real facts." Unless a person is already well-versed in a particular subject, the massive quantity of bogus information out there can send a person in circles looking for the right answer. Google just about anything, and you'll have to wade through the garbage to find worth-while info. At least many news papers and magazines have so called "Fact Checkers", though I agree that many mistakes make it through. The internet is both a blessing and a curse, I don't see how you can argue that.

-Cole


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 2:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Posts: 3522
Cole Grover wrote:
jonathan wrote:
I don't see the internet as any more error-prone than any other way that people get information. The good thing about the internet is that when you see something wrong, it is much much easier to do a quick search and get the real facts.


Nah... I've got to disagree with you here. The ease of "publication" and preponderance of incorrect or partially correct information found on the internet make it extremely difficult to "do a quick search and get the real facts." Unless a person is already well-versed in a particular subject, the massive quantity of bogus information out there can send a person in circles looking for the right answer. Google just about anything, and you'll have to wade through the garbage to find worth-while info. At least many news papers and magazines have so called "Fact Checkers", though I agree that many mistakes make it through. The internet is both a blessing and a curse, I don't see how you can argue that.



I completely disagree. If you have familiarity with the internet and understand how to do research at all, it is pretty easy to distinguish the reputable information from random blowhards. The internet has made fact-checking far easier than it ever was before. If you want examples I can give them to you for just about any topic.

And you're trying to compare apples and oranges. Sure, reputable newspapers and journalistic magazines have factcheckers - but so do the internet sites of those same reputable newspapers and magazines.

When you're looking at random information like what was in the OP, you can't compare it to a reputable newspaper. Do you really think that someone stopped reading National Geographic so they could look at WikiAnswers instead? The appropriate comparison is what you hear on a random talk radio show, or read in a popular entertainment magazine, or hear from a teacher who isn't educated on the subject or just some friend spouting off. Those are some of the main ways that the average person on the street used to get information, and the internet gives them a better means than they ever had before to actually check that information. Anyone who actually got their information from a reputable source will just continue to use the same reputable sources online - that's not the kind of people we're talking about here.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 3:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 9:06 am
Posts: 742
Location: Montana
Jonathan,

Again, I couldn't disagree with you more. The fact that anyone can put anything on the internet, and then back it up with claims of authority obviates that there is a greater likelihood of misinformation coming from it than reviewed, edited print sources. I'll leave it at that, however, since it's quite apparent that you simply like to argue.

-Cole


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 3:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Posts: 3522
Cole Grover wrote:
Again, I couldn't disagree with you more. The fact that anyone can put anything on the internet, and then back it up with claims of authority obviates that there is a greater likelihood of misinformation coming from it than reviewed, edited print sources. I'll leave it at that, however, since it's quite apparent that you simply like to argue.



Cole, that's bad manners. There's no reason to attack my character just because I have a different opinion than you on this issue.


Again, I don't know why you're comparing the internet to reviewed, edited print sources like they're equivalent. The equivalent of reviewed, edited print sources is reviewed, edited internet sources. The equivalent of random blogs is random guys spouting off on the radio. The equivalent of an even more random site like the "Wikianswers" question in the OP is asking your friend or your teacher a question. The difference with the internet is that you can turn around and check the answer they give you - something you could never do before. The only way to get a pile of different "reviewed, edited print sources" before was to be at a school or in a library. Now you have it right at your fingertips whenever you want.

Trust me, there can't be more than a handful of people who are stupid enough to say "Well, I used to read peer-reviewed scientific journals to get my answers, but now I just go to "Wikianswers". Setting up wikianswers and reviewed, edited print sources as your comparisons is a false dichotomy.


Here's a test question - do you believe that amateur field herpers know more or less about how to actually find herps than they did before the internet came about? Before they were going off of personal experience, word-of-mouth, and the few field herping books out there, many of them quite old. Now they can see websites and forums like this one, get the opinions of far more people and choose for themselves what is likely accurate based on how many people say it, the experience of those who are saying it, and the evidence they are using to back their statements up with (whether it be anecdotal or backed up with studies). Do you think that the average amateur field herper is now more or less informed than they were before the internet?

On a related note - do you think that those same amateurs read more or fewer peer-reviewed scientific studies than they did before the internet put them in contact with such resources?


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 3:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:14 pm
Posts: 1019
Location: Pacific Northwest
I agree with Cole more here. The fact is the greater part of the population is misinformed about most things they would search on the internet to find out, and the same majority is not good at distinguishing a good source from a bad one online, so the internet breeds misinformation much more quickly. Yes it is easier for people like us to get online to find the right answer to something than to go through all of the books and papers that we might have, but most of us also paid a lot more attention in the parts of school that had to do with research, citing sources, so on. In the end, people post things like the OP, then other people who do a search for "what is the biggest snake" or "largest rattlesnake" and this pops up, they read it, and move on thinking they found the answer, then they spread that answer by mouth or writing, or worse, their own online page, which creates another "source" with bad info. In the printed world, you can generally judge a book or magazine by its cover ie; National Geographic vs. National Enquirer... But to be fair, I won't hold weight to that comparison, because Jonathan is partially right, comparing the internet to printed sources isn't fair.

But most people just don't know how to search the internet "properly" and usually assume if it's in the top 3-5 sources of a given search than it must be right. And in the same test question you present, the inverse can be used. How often do you hear someone spout of some type of false information about a given topic, say cottonmouths vs. water snakes, then say, "I saw it on youtube (this could be substituted with several other popular websites like wiki)"?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 3:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Posts: 3522
AndyO'Connor wrote:
And in the same test question you present, the inverse can be used. How often do you hear someone spout of some type of false information about a given topic, say cottonmouths vs. water snakes, then say, "I saw it on youtube (this could be substituted with several other popular websites like wiki)"?


Definitely no more often then I hear someone say "my friend told me" or "my teacher told me" or "the girl at the nature center told me" or "I saw it on tv" or "I heard on the radio that"....

Misinformation has always been around. The question is, before the internet, where would the average person have gone to get the watersnake/cottonmouth question corrected? Unless they personally knew an experienced herper or owned a field guide and really knew how to use it, they were just stuck with the misinformation. Now they can post a picture online or post a question and have a much better chance of getting the correct answer than they did before. Even on message boards that have nothing to do with herpetology, I often see similar questions asked and they usually end up with a knowledgeable person stepping in and setting everyone straight.


BTW - I want to clarify what you mean by "wiki". Wikipedia is actually one of the best information sites out there - it's extremely up-to-date and well-referenced, and any article about a relatively important subject will likely have had several experts who have edited it. I would trust wikipedia long before I would trust the average encyclopedia. I can't think of any single print source that provides nearly as much correct information as wikipedia does. WikiAnswers, which is what the OP dealt with, is clearly a much more amateurish, anonymous, unreferenced site, and that is obvious the second the screen loads. You don't need to be an expert to realize that the rambling, self-contradictory mess in the OP wasn't an authoritative answer.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 3:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Posts: 3522
AndyO'Connor wrote:
I agree with Cole more here. The fact is the greater part of the population is misinformed about most things they would search on the internet to find out, and the same majority is not good at distinguishing a good source from a bad one online, so the internet breeds misinformation much more quickly.


You say the internet "breeds misinformation" more quickly, but do you think those people were correctly informed before they had the internet? Someone who is misinformed by the internet is likely just replacing previous misinformation with new misinformation. But what the internet does is give many more people access to the correct information. Like I said before, anyone dumb enough to be going to "wikianswers" as their authoritative source was reading peer-reviewed journals before - they never had the correct information in the first place.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 3:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 19th, 2010, 6:42 pm
Posts: 848
Location: New Yawk
I agree with Jonathan. The internet has great potential for those who know how to use it properly. Sure, anyone can post something, but I certainly don't trust anything unless the website is reputable. For example, if I wanted information on NYS herps, the first hit on google is the NYS DEC's website: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7140.html.

If you type in "NYS reptile" or "NYS amphibian," you get the same first hit.

If you type in "NYS snake" you get the webpage for the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry's E-Center website on snakes.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 28th, 2010, 4:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Posts: 3522
And try just typing in "reptile". The very first link is a wikipedia article, and it's a better source of information than almost any print source that the average person would be able to find if they were trying to find out about reptiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile


For most Southern California reptiles and amphibians, if you type in the actual species you get the following four sites prominently at or near the top of the results:

Gary Nafis's excellent online California field guide (puts print guides to shame)
The wikipedia entry for the species
The San Diego Natural History Museum's field guide
Pages from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife


ENature and the Center for Biological Diversity are often on the front page of results as well. And I just typed in five different species, and didn't see any misinformation-filled sites anywhere in the first 10 results for any of those species.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 29th, 2010, 4:59 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2415
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
jonathan wrote:
BTW - I want to clarify what you mean by "wiki". Wikipedia is actually one of the best information sites out there - it's extremely up-to-date and well-referenced, and any article about a relatively important subject will likely have had several experts who have edited it. I would trust wikipedia long before I would trust the average encyclopedia.


Where I currently teach, use of Wikipedia as a reference is verboten.

Generally speaking, the articles there are good, but the veracity of information contained in an article is inversely proportional to the level of controversy associated with that article. Check out articles about animal rights, for example.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 29th, 2010, 6:57 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 19th, 2010, 6:42 pm
Posts: 848
Location: New Yawk
For citation purposes, of course Wikipedia should be forbidden. However, as a general research tool, it is often much more up to date and accurate than any print encyclopedia. Proper use of Wikipedia requires critical thinking, but it is surprisingly accurate on most technical topics. Don't trust a claim? Look up the citation. In fact, the website even tells you when a claim lacks verification and should be taken with a grain of salt.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 29th, 2010, 7:12 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Posts: 3522
chris_mcmartin wrote:
jonathan wrote:
BTW - I want to clarify what you mean by "wiki". Wikipedia is actually one of the best information sites out there - it's extremely up-to-date and well-referenced, and any article about a relatively important subject will likely have had several experts who have edited it. I would trust wikipedia long before I would trust the average encyclopedia.


Where I currently teach, use of Wikipedia as a reference is verboten.

Generally speaking, the articles there are good, but the veracity of information contained in an article is inversely proportional to the level of controversy associated with that article. Check out articles about animal rights, for example.


Any high school or college student who wanted to use wikipedia could go right to the article, find the information they wanted, then use the footnoting to get a hold of the original, "quotable" source. The Animal Rights article you mention (which I didn't see any problem with, though I didn't read the whole thing), has 104 footnotes and over 50 sources for "further reading". That's a treasure trove of information that would not be nearly as easily searchable for the average person.

Comparing apples to apples, how often do your students use print encyclopedias, and do you consider them good sources of information? Before you answer that question, look up the same herp topic on wikipedia and a print encyclopedia (like, say "coral snake") and see which one you'd rather have your students go to for info. I just did that experiment and it's no contest - the encyclopedia article (from Funk and Wagnall's) is extremely short, yet still contains about 1 error per sentence. The wikipedia article for coral snakes, even though wikipedia has flagged it for not having enough citations and being too US-centric, is far more informative and correct than the Funk and Wagnall's version.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 29th, 2010, 9:05 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2415
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
jonathan wrote:
Any high school or college student who wanted to use wikipedia could go right to the article, find the information they wanted, then use the footnoting to get a hold of the original, "quotable" source.


True, and that's generally the "approved workaround" for the rule.

Quote:
The Animal Rights article you mention (which I didn't see any problem with, though I didn't read the whole thing), has 104 footnotes and over 50 sources for "further reading". That's a treasure trove of information that would not be nearly as easily searchable for the average person.


Information that is potentially biased/one-sided, in the case of a controversial issue (I don't think "coral snakes" are controversial issues)...I haven't looked at any of the animal rights articles in over a year but I do remember checking out the editing history. It was a downright hissy fit between people writing "for the cause" and people calling them out when they selectively omit information or only use PeTA/HSUS websites as their references. I guess that's why we discourage students from using Wikipedia as a reference...they do a pretty good job in most cases but most of our graded requirements are argumentative essays and it's easy to succumb to the siren song of bias, especially when goaded on by lopsided articles on controversial topics.

Quote:
Comparing apples to apples, how often do your students use print encyclopedias, and do you consider them good sources of information?


Rarely, due to the nature of the topics being researched.

Side note: you mentioned enature.com as a good site. I'm not a fan, if the site is still what it used to be (online version of the Audubon guides). From the few entries I just checked, that seems to be the case.

I totally agree with the previous points made about asking people about subject matter in which they're not experts. A teacher doesn't know everything about everything; even a "reptile expert" can be overly specialized to give a good answer in other herp-related areas (though they have a better shot at giving a good answer than, say, a geologist or a historian).


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 29th, 2010, 10:07 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Posts: 3522
chris_mcmartin wrote:
Side note: you mentioned enature.com as a good site. I'm not a fan, if the site is still what it used to be (online version of the Audubon guides). From the few entries I just checked, that seems to be the case.


Um, just to be clear, I didn't exactly say that. All I said was that it was often on the front page of results. The only field guide that I called "excellent" was Gary's California Herps site, because it is! :thumb: Implicitly, by pointing out enature I was also saying that it was not a "misinformation-filled site", which I still think is true. I'm not endorsing the content in any way other than that it appears to be basically factual from what I've seen.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 30th, 2010, 8:21 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 19th, 2010, 6:42 pm
Posts: 848
Location: New Yawk
Not to beat a dead horse, but has anyone tried IDing insects without the easily navigable Bugguide.net?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 30th, 2010, 8:24 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 9:06 am
Posts: 742
Location: Montana
jonathan wrote:
Cole, that's bad manners. There's no reason to attack my character just because I have a different opinion than you on this issue.


And how many internet arguments have you been in this month? I've seen several just on this forum... But, I digress...

In this day and age, information is more accessible and widely available on a broader range of subjects than ever before. That said, the ability of any doofus to "publish" their information and tout themselves as an expert has also grown exponentially. I personally feel that your claim that people can tell the difference between a reputable/honest source and a bogus one is in error. After seeing some of the "writing styles" and inability to formulate a coherent sentence we've ALL seen, it's apparent that perhaps the average information seeker might NOT be able to differentiate between the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Quote:
Here's a test question - do you believe that amateur field herpers know more or less about how to actually find herps than they did before the internet came about? Before they were going off of personal experience, word-of-mouth, and the few field herping books out there, many of them quite old. Now they can see websites and forums like this one, get the opinions of far more people and choose for themselves what is likely accurate based on how many people say it, the experience of those who are saying it, and the evidence they are using to back their statements up with (whether it be anecdotal or backed up with studies). Do you think that the average amateur field herper is now more or less informed than they were before the internet?


How is that a test question? I've already stated that I think the internet has plenty of offer to someone who's done a little work to figure out something about their subject of interest. Sure, the internet (forums like this one) has done loads to help further the knowledge of amateur field herpers. On that same note, though, how much damage have some of the videos on YouTube done? Us FHFers have had that discussion lots of times, haven't we?

Anyway, I think you and I are not likely to see eye-to-eye on this issue, no matter how much we talk it through.

-Cole


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: July 30th, 2010, 9:58 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Posts: 3522
Cole, let's just try discussing this particular topic. Attacking my character doesn't help either of us or anyone else on this board. Play the ball, not the man.

I'll move my main point to the top because it gets buried in everything - do you think that a significant number of people are replacing their reading of "reviewed, edited print sources" with random grammatically impaired wikianswers? If the only people who believe these silly uninformative answers are people that were going to be uninformed anyway, then what's the problem? If they're satisfied with that "largest snake answer" (which has since been edited to a reasonably correct answer), do you really think that they were ever going to bother looking at an edited, reviewed, accurate print source in the first place?

You say that the average information seeker can't tell a good source from a bad source - but as John and I pointed out, the main google hits for herp-related entries predominantly contain good information. Wikipedia, which is the most prominent go-to site for any kind of information (which is why it shows up so high so often on google searches), is almost entirely full of good information. And John and I showed that other good sites are usually filling up the spots at or near the top of the google searches. The sites that are getting the most hits have the best information. So even if someone couldn't differentiate by themselves, won't they end up with good information the majority of the time solely due to the default results of google searching?

When a just random "anyone" publishes to the internet...no one notices. That's because there are millions of internet sites and most of them get very few hits. Yes, some people will see some random person's dumb site - but they're just as likely to have heard bad information from a random teacher or uneducated volunteer. Yes, some people will see a bad youtube video - but they might as easily have seen their friends do something stupid.

btw - you ask me how much damage these "youtube" videos have done. May I ask what youtube videos you're talking about, and what example you have of "damage"? I know a lot of people who tell me that they've learned a ton about herping on the internet - many on this site. There is more than one person here who has gone from collecting everything and not caring at all about conservation to being an adamant supporter of herp education and conservation via this community. Do you know a similar number of people who now do bad things to herps because they saw youtube videos? Sorry, but rattlesnake rallies existed long before the internet did, and they seemed to be able to publicize their stupidity very well without the internet - heck, the internet has probably been the main vehicle for those who fight against rattlesnake rallies. And do you have any evidence, even anecdotal, that the effect of youtube has been any worse than the effect of, say, Animal Planet?

The main issue I have with your point of view is that I haven't seen you give any evidence that the internet is making people's level of knowledge worse, and there's a ton of evidence that it's making people's level of knowledge better. We definitely know that a lot of people know more about herps and field herping via the internet. Are there really people who know less? Do you really think that there's a lot of people who knew the correct information before, but now changed their mind to something dumb because of some blog or wikianswers question? If your worse indictment of the internet is that some uneducated people have remained uneducated, then big deal - they'd be uneducated with or without the internet. The important fact is that the internet has moved many, many people in the direction of more education, and just about no one in the direction of less.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: August 4th, 2010, 9:35 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 9:06 am
Posts: 742
Location: Montana
jonathan wrote:

I'll move my main point to the top because it gets buried in everything - do you think that a significant number of people are replacing their reading of "reviewed, edited print sources" with random grammatically impaired wikianswers?


Fist off, I didn't attack you. I simply made an observation which has been re-validated in the days since. I'm dropping it, now. Don't forget, you called me out, DefenderNet. Not once have I said that the internet is a bad thing - just that there's a preponderance of misinformation, smut, and garbage out there. There are, however, some seriously awesome websites, too. This is one of them. Yes, there's garbage in print, too. A certain dumbed-down herp publication that's been around for years and steadily gone down-hill is a prime example.

As for your question, I'd have to say that there are probably a significant number of people who are using less accurate, but easier to obtain information. So... yes, more or less. Are people who would normally be reading Herp Review ending their memberships to SSAR in lieu of the internet? Probably not. But, the "lazy factor" is undoubtedly coming into play here - people who'd otherwise be forced to immerse themselves in factual, reviewed literature have a whole world of misinformation at their fingertips.


jonathan wrote:
btw - you ask me how much damage these "youtube" videos have done. May I ask what youtube videos you're talking about, and what example you have of "damage"? I know a lot of people who tell me that they've learned a ton about herping on the internet - many on this site. There is more than one person here who has gone from collecting everything and not caring at all about conservation to being an adamant supporter of herp education and conservation via this community. Do you know a similar number of people who now do bad things to herps because they saw youtube videos? Sorry, but rattlesnake rallies existed long before the internet did, and they seemed to be able to publicize their stupidity very well without the internet - heck, the internet has probably been the main vehicle for those who fight against rattlesnake rallies. And do you have any evidence, even anecdotal, that the effect of youtube has been any worse than the effect of, say, Animal Planet?


I believe you grossly misinterpreted what I've said, so I'll say it again: There are fantastic sites on the internet - This one included! But, for every good site, there is a plethora of shitacular garbage out there, too. As for what damage has been done by on-line vidoe hosting sites, just watch a few of the amateur video jockies on that site and tell me what good is coming from their show-boating and wrangling of venomous animals. Seriously. I've hit the point where I won't even watch videos posted by fellow FHFers.

jonathan wrote:
The main issue I have with your point of view is that I haven't seen you give any evidence that the internet is making people's level of knowledge worse, and there's a ton of evidence that it's making people's level of knowledge better. We definitely know that a lot of people know more about herps and field herping via the internet. Are there really people who know less? Do you really think that there's a lot of people who knew the correct information before, but now changed their mind to something dumb because of some blog or wikianswers question? If your worse indictment of the internet is that some uneducated people have remained uneducated, then big deal - they'd be uneducated with or without the internet. The important fact is that the internet has moved many, many people in the direction of more education, and just about no one in the direction of less.


Do I think that people are losing knowledge? Absolutely not. That's just silly. Perhaps the reason this "debate" is still going on between us is that you've not comprehended my message. What I am saying is that many people are not learning correct information from the start. Hence, unless a person has some sort of factual base from which to leap, a dive into the nebulous Web is just as likely, if not more likely, to produce poor results.

I'm done.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: August 4th, 2010, 2:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2415
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Cole Grover wrote:
I'm done.


Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 15 foot atrox
PostPosted: August 4th, 2010, 3:59 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:52 pm
Posts: 2288
Location: Amarillo, Texas
*cough cough* That line must have been unintentional irony on Lucas' part since the movies were too dumb and godawful for it to have been intentional.
I've been staying out of this but I'm drunk, and I'm bored. SO I'll enter it.

The internet is the best thing that's happened for information since the advent of writing. If you're a total novice it's dangerous as hell, but once you have a little knowledge, the internet makes it much easier to gain further knowledge; if you've got the ability to sift the utter dreck, you'll probably be fine. I'm far more erudite about many things (comptuers, herps, guns, literature, alcohol) than I would be without the 'net. I cannot afford access to tons of fancy publications and my local library doesn't have things like SSAR on it's subscription list. The net is one hell of an equalizer for those of us in the lower socio-economic class trying to expand our knowledge. No more wishing the library kept better hours, or wishing I had money to buy magazines/books/journals.
I won't deny that there's a lot of garbage, but A: It isn't unique to the web...look at TFH publications for instance...and B: that doesn't detract from the positives that the internet has. The internet is a powerful tool. Sort of like a bandsaw. You can use a bandsaw to dismember corpses for disposal, or to cut planks for a house. That doesn't make it a bad tool, just a powerful one.

and what's wrong with some smut? that stuff used t be mostly printed/filmed.

I'm going to sleep it off now.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: