Most Useless Site on the Internet?

By -
Just might be Answers.com. I'd guess 50% of the answers I see there are either flawed or pure nonsense. Here someone asks what the most three-point shots made in a University of North Carolina home basketball game is, and the "top" answer is that once Donyell Marshall hit twelve in an NBA game!

What's interesting is the Answers.com clearly intended to take advantage of the "wisdom of crowds" in the same way that Wikipedia does. So why are Wikipedia's results so much better? I'm just guessing at this point, but I'd say it's the editing. On Wikipedia, nonsense quickly vanishes from the main article (although of course it lingers in the history files). I don't think Answers.com provides a way to make a bad answer disappear.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy10:32 AM

    Yeah I agree. The only time I even look at an Answers.com response is if it's a trial-and-error question where the right answer (if found) will be obvious. Like, "How do I turn off Autosave in Excel?" or something like that. Or, "Name one 8-year-old who has better instincts about government than Gene Callahan."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wabulon4:31 PM

    Baad Bob.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more