BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[briantrumpet]

Tenuous link alert.

Similar with saxophones with the Yamaha method.

I'm perpetually amazed at Yamaha's ability to design and manufacture high quality things from piccolos to motorbikes. They still are one of the standard professional-level trumpet marques.

 

[Ian H]

Actually, to be vaguely serious for a moment (sorry, I won't make a habit of it), Stradivarius did also make guitars.

View attachment 10845

Is that the handle of the bow on the left?

 

[briantrumpet]

No one cares.

I was just pointing out that he had another string to his bow.

 

[First Aspect]

I was just pointing out that he had another string to his bow.

I've lost the thread...

 

[secretsqirrel]

I'm perpetually amazed at Yamaha's ability to design and manufacture high quality things from piccolos to motorbikes. They still are one of the standard professional-level trumpet marques.

I covet Grace’s 82z Alto in bronze. It is a thing of beauty. 😍

 

[briantrumpet]

I covet Grace’s 82z Alto in bronze. It is a thing of beauty. 😍

Their genius goes right from the design through to quality control on what gets shipped out of the factories, hand-finishing and all. I'd hope that other large sprawling corporations would study how Yamaha do it and take note.

 

[briantrumpet]

I've lost the thread...

Maybe you've just tuned out.

 

[First Aspect]

Maybe you've just tuned out.

I am gently weeping.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Wikipedia hasn't been reliable for quite a while. It's only as accurate and impartial as the editors of the pages and only as unbiased as those in charge. It's decline as an impartial source of information is inevitable given it's size and the nature of how it works. It's now too big to be effectively managed. It's useful at times but let's not pretend it is a unbiased reliable source on contentious topics or even gives balanced appraisals of individuals.


https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/march-2023/who-watches-the-wikipedia-editors/

As another example, journalist Owen Jones made 200 changes to the Wikki page on Israel.

 

[First Aspect]

Wikipedia hasn't been reliable for quite a while. It's only as accurate and impartial as the editors of the pages and only as unbiased as those in charge. It's decline as an impartial source of information is inevitable given it's size and the nature of how it works. It's now too big to be effectively managed. It's useful at times but let's not pretend it is a unbiased reliable source on contentious topics or even gives balanced appraisals of individuals.


https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/march-2023/who-watches-the-wikipedia-editors/

As another example, journalist Owen Jones made 200 changes to the Wikki page on Israel.

It does depend on what you use it for. As a dumping ground for grad students to put technical information I find it invaluable, with the provisio of having to conduct my own sanity checks. I imagine as a factual resource in other disciplines it's quite good as well.

However, you can see who edits it and what the sources supposedly are. This makes it more transparent than most sources, even if it is biased. Thats because the bias is transparent.

 

[briantrumpet]

I am gently weeping.

Call it gut instinct.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It does depend on what you use it for. As a dumping ground for grad students to put technical information I find it invaluable, with the provisio of having to conduct my own sanity checks. I imagine as a factual resource in other disciplines it's quite good as well.

I agree it's a quick and easy resource for straightforward factual info. I think a lot of people will take Wikki info at face value though and not even look at the editors.

 

[Ian H]

I agree it's a quick and easy resource for straightforward factual info. I think a lot of people will take Wikki info at face value though and not even look at the editors.

A bit like Britannia and other encyclopædias then, except they lack the transparency of Wikipedia.

 

[Pblakeney]

Only if you completely fail to understand how Wikipedia works. Otherwise it's spot on. Let's look at the most recent statement where Wikipedia reaffirmed the ban on using the Mail as a reliable news source.

The citation points to https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/wikipedia-daily-mail-generally-unreliable.html

The article then references sanctions from IPSO for violating professional norms for accuracy. In other words the Mail runs a lot of fabricated clickbait stories.


The point is that the Daily Mail is an unreliable right wing rag. The Telegraph should also be in this category due to its willingness to print state sanctioned propaganda as factual articles (they have done this for both Russia and China) as well as fabricating news stories.


I take it you don't like reasoned argument by an intelligent journalist?

Wait till they find out about the Daily Express.

 

[AuroraSaab]

A bit like Britannia and other encyclopædias then, except they lack the transparency of Wikipedia.

Any online 'authority' that can be edited by the public or which has partisan content creators is open to being manipulated to present a certain view. The fact that Wikipedia show the edits doesn't negate that it's presenting unbalanced content in some articles. We should treat it with the same scepticism we treat other outlets.