• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

RealTalk 1160 GM is 'out the door'...

microbob said:
You should know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of info according to most people. Neither is talk radio for that matter. It's is just entertainment not journalism.

Actually, there have been several studies that rank Wikipedia as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. It's the new wave of information, better start getting used to it.
 
Anyone can post to wikipedia - kind of like the graffiti on the Crosley building in Camp Washington. Better yet, it's as factual as a caller on 700WLW, like "Richard from Indian Hill". I can post copyrighted material to it - doesn't that make wikipedia the owner? No. If it's the "wave of the future", why would University of Cincinnati professors ban the usage? Because it ain't accurate.
 
almaniac27 said:
microbob said:
You should know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of info according to most people. Neither is talk radio for that matter. It's is just entertainment not journalism.

Actually, there have been several studies that rank Wikipedia as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. It's the new wave of information, better start getting used to it.

Were those studies conducted by Wikipedia???
It's about as accurate as the weight on my drivers license ;)
 
OK this is from the John Birch Society website.
Forget Wiki.

Core Principles
Mission
To bring about less government, more responsibility, and — with God's help — a better world by providing leadership, education, and organized volunteer action in accordance with moral and Constitutional principles.

Preserving Individual Rights & National Independence
"These United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States … We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
— Declaration of Independence, 1776
The Declaration of Independence established the independence of both the original 13 American colonies and the United States of America that they together formed a decade later.

The Declaration proclaimed that our personal rights come from God, not from government.

The John Birch Society endorses the timeless principles of the Declaration of Independence. The Society also labors to warn against and expose the forces that seek to abolish U.S. independence, build a world government, or otherwise undermine our personal liberties and national independence.


Restoring the Constitution
"That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." — Declaration of Independence, 1776
The Constitution of the United States of America instituted the government that secures our God-given rights.

The John Birch Society endorses the U.S. Constitution as the foundation of our national government, and works toward educating and activating Americans to abide by the original intent of the Founding Fathers. We seek to awaken a sleeping and apathetic people concerning the designs of those who are working to destroy our constitutional Republic.


Sounds good to me.
 
markbohach said:
almaniac27 said:
microbob said:
You should know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of info according to most people. Neither is talk radio for that matter. It's is just entertainment not journalism.

Actually, there have been several studies that rank Wikipedia as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. It's the new wave of information, better start getting used to it.

Were those studies conducted by Wikipedia???
It's about as accurate as the weight on my drivers license ;)

The journal Nature for one: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Thomas Jefferson University for another: http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/06/02/study-wikipedia-accurate-but-written-poorly/

I understand the skepticism, but I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is here to stay.
 
ToddyO said:
Anyone can post to wikipedia - kind of like the graffiti on the Crosley building in Camp Washington. Better yet, it's as factual as a caller on 700WLW, like "Richard from Indian Hill". I can post copyrighted material to it - doesn't that make wikipedia the owner? No. If it's the "wave of the future", why would University of Cincinnati professors ban the usage? Because it ain't accurate.

I'm a University of Cincinnati professor. May I have your source on that 'ban?'
 
It's not easy at all to post things on Wikipedia. Especially if you haven't messed with it before.

I added a new entry from scratch about a semi-famous family member and it was a real nightmare.

There are all kinds of Wiki Nazis that are just waiting to pounce on you about copyrights and sources of photos, etc.

A real pain.
 
nicomp said:
ToddyO said:
Anyone can post to wikipedia - kind of like the graffiti on the Crosley building in Camp Washington. Better yet, it's as factual as a caller on 700WLW, like "Richard from Indian Hill". I can post copyrighted material to it - doesn't that make wikipedia the owner? No. If it's the "wave of the future", why would University of Cincinnati professors ban the usage? Because it ain't accurate.

I'm a University of Cincinnati professor. May I have your source on that 'ban?'

Most of my English professors, law professors and communications professors. Sounded pretty convincing so we students took them for their word. I understand other colleges have adopted the same prohibition. If you cited wikipedia in a court brief, you'd be laughed out of court and your client would probably have a decent case to smack you up side your head!
 
Perosonally I belong to "The Society For The Preservation Of Wooden Toilet Seats In America", better known as "The Birch John Society".
;D
 
ToddyO said:
nicomp said:
ToddyO said:
Anyone can post to wikipedia - kind of like the graffiti on the Crosley building in Camp Washington. Better yet, it's as factual as a caller on 700WLW, like "Richard from Indian Hill". I can post copyrighted material to it - doesn't that make wikipedia the owner? No. If it's the "wave of the future", why would University of Cincinnati professors ban the usage? Because it ain't accurate.

I'm a University of Cincinnati professor. May I have your source on that 'ban?'

Most of my English professors, law professors and communications professors. Sounded pretty convincing so we students took them for their word. I understand other colleges have adopted the same prohibition. If you cited wikipedia in a court brief, you'd be laughed out of court and your client would probably have a decent case to smack you up side your head!

You are correct regarding Wikipedia as an authoritative source in court or in a legitimate research paper. My concern is the concept that the entire university has banned the use of Wikipedia citations. Perhaps individual teachers prohibit it, but getting them all to agree on anything is like herding cats. I don't permit my students to cite Wikipedia under any circumstances, but that's my decision, not a university-wide edict. If UC has taken such a stance, I didn't get the memo.
 
nicomp said:
ToddyO said:
nicomp said:
ToddyO said:
Anyone can post to wikipedia - kind of like the graffiti on the Crosley building in Camp Washington. Better yet, it's as factual as a caller on 700WLW, like "Richard from Indian Hill". I can post copyrighted material to it - doesn't that make wikipedia the owner? No. If it's the "wave of the future", why would University of Cincinnati professors ban the usage? Because it ain't accurate.

I'm a University of Cincinnati professor. May I have your source on that 'ban?'

Most of my English professors, law professors and communications professors. Sounded pretty convincing so we students took them for their word. I understand other colleges have adopted the same prohibition. If you cited wikipedia in a court brief, you'd be laughed out of court and your client would probably have a decent case to smack you up side your head!

You are correct regarding Wikipedia as an authoritative source in court or in a legitimate research paper. My concern is the concept that the entire university has banned the use of Wikipedia citations. Perhaps individual teachers prohibit it, but getting them all to agree on anything is like herding cats. I don't permit my students to cite Wikipedia under any circumstances, but that's my decision, not a university-wide edict. If UC has taken such a stance, I didn't get the memo.
That was the inference during the 9 years I was a student, ending last month.
 
jry mentioned WKRC-AM'S ratings drop. It's a common theme right now among stations carrying Limbaugh, Beck, etc right now, due to repeats and / or hosts taking time off.
 
major said:
I think those ratings are for periods prior to all the vacations.

Right. WLW dropped a little as well. A pittance. What is interesting about that, though, is the Reds are RED HOT. Seems like the numbers would go up, not down. The question is, where did those listeners go???
 
145 on Fox Sports Ohio, plus Fox network games, and ESPN games. All but about 10 I would guess, all weekday businessmen specials.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom