Please Note! ScienceBlogs is taking a break while we upgrade the system. Read on for more...
Taking science by the throat...
I am a Dragon. I emerge from my Egg. More...
| Co-moderator of globalchange mailing list | Subscribe to globalchange |
| Browse at groups.google.com | |
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Eating weasels is wrong | Main | NRK nationalised »
Category: misc
Posted on: February 11, 2008 6:22 PM, by William M. Connolley
People love to compare Wikipedia to Open Source but guess what: bad, incorrect code doesn't compile. Bad, incorrect information on the net lives on and non-experts hardly ever notice the mistake [1], via Alice.
True enough, though plenty of cr*ppy code will compile [2].
Send this entry to:
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $19.95. If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
Even worse, the code compiles and then proceeds to make unnoticed mistakes.
"Good code is hard to find..."
Posted by: David B. Benson | February 11, 2008 7:38 PM
William,
this is off-topic, but might be of interest for you - http://www.buffalo.edu/news/9138 - IPCC SLR predictions are probably underestimated
[Hmm, I think they are over selling their work. This is improvements in the data-ing of *one* glacier, though a large one. Quite how you jump from that to doubling SLR estimates is mysterious -W]
Posted by: Alexander Ač | February 12, 2008 3:26 AM
Edmund Burke:
"In my course I have known, and, according to my measure, have co-operated with great men; and I have never yet seen any plan which has not been mended by the observations of those who were much inferior in understanding to the person who took the lead in the business."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflections_on_the_Revolution_in_France
It's a powerful idea, and one that underpins projects like Wikipedia. Though note that he doesn't suggest the project is led by those who are "much inferior in understanding".
Posted by: Munin | February 12, 2008 5:00 AM
William,
not me, *they* jump to doubling SLR estimate -
"If current climate models from the IPCC included data from ice dynamics in Greenland, the sea level rise estimated during this century could be twice as high as what they are currently projecting," she [Beata Csatho] said.
I suggest that they somehow extrapolate their results also to other outlet glaciers in Greenland, though this may not be quite appropriate or over selling in your term ;-)
What seems to be guaranteed it that IPCC does not overestimate SLR :-)
Posted by: Alexander Ač | February 12, 2008 9:02 AM
"bad, incorrect code doesn't compile"
Yes, I've worked with programmers who believed that. Unsurprisingly, their code was terrible.
Posted by: Nick Barnes | February 12, 2008 3:09 PM
bad, incorrect code doesn't compile with every bad, lame compiler your bad, incompetent boss bought and it certainly won't run on any bad retarded computer IT foisted on you
Posted by: Eli Rabett | February 12, 2008 4:43 PM
Without looking my guess would be that she did assume that the other outlet glaciers would behave similarly, but OTOH the IPCC did exactly the same and with even less of a basis.
OT (but teleconnected): Time for the Stoat to fold his tent?
Posted by: Steve Bloom | February 12, 2008 7:00 PM
Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary I can prove I'm not just blatting about this since I did read the paper (free copy here). I just don't remember whether it said anything specific about the other outlet glaciers. That the IPCC was guessing is uncontroversial. :)
Posted by: Steve Bloom | February 12, 2008 7:10 PM
Back on-topic, I just looked briefly at Citizendium, the alleged fix for the alleged problem, and I'm unimpressed.
I think non-experts can spot and fix errors - I've done it often enough on wikipedia, including articles and topics I don't normally edit (e.g., an article on a movie I just saw). I won't be as good at it as an expert, but there's a lot more of us non-experts.
Posted by: Brian Schmidt | February 14, 2008 1:30 PM