In an amusing aside, I was doing a quick search just now on Wikipedia for "the yuck factor" - rest assured, I was just reference hunting and feeling too lazy to go over to my bookshelf. I ended up on the page for Leon Kass's Wisdom of Repugnance (and I do have to admit I like the drawn differentiation between the yuck factor and the wisdom of repugnance; linguistically, the yuck factor by it's very judgmental tone brings into immediate question the why and what and should we even respond this way, whereas the very phrasing of the wisdom of repugnance grants it a validity I don't think is necessarily true). There, at the bottom of the page, I saw the most amusing link in the "See Also" tag:Truthiness.
Oh, Wikipedia user Reaverdrop, I appreciate your sense of humour, whomever you are.
-Kelly (who should really be working on her essay on black swans and induction...)
3 comments:
When I've used Wikipedia as a starting point for sources for students, they really wonder if I know what I'm doing. It's really a last resort, but it's done.
six degrees of separation, wikipedia style? I, for one, would be fascinated as to the path from Tacoma Narrows to Taylor Hansen.
Laurie - I think wikipedia is a fine source so long as you know what you're doing (and I trust a librarian to know what they're doing, heh). Ditto for encyclopedias, really - it just shouldn't be a primary, secondary, or generally trusted resource. ;)
Anon - I have no idea, but I have played several 6 degrees type games on Wikipedia, whence whiling away the night. They're fun AND edutainment! ;-)
Post a Comment