Wikipedia Bashing

[Johpa]

I'll take another example, still Thailand related: the Crown Property Bureau.

If you take the wikipedia page: Bureau of the Crown Property, you will see that this article is not exactly nice with this institution.

Now have a look at the external links at the bottom of the page, you will see 2: the official website and Asia Sentinel's website.

Oh surprise, wikipedia's article is just the summarized version of Asia's Sentinel page, with the same references.

I don't say that what's in this article is not true, just that I cannot trust the content in this case, because the "million people waiting to correct your mate at the bar" factor obviously did not work.....

Actually an excellent example of a decent article on a very, very obscure topic. Imagine a reader outside of Thailand encountering a reference to the CPB. The Wiki article gives a brief overview of the institution, some brief comments of recent news related to the CPB, and further links. The article allows the casual reader who is unfamiliar with Thailand to place this Thai institution into some context and have it become become more than an anonymous acronym.

[ColPyat]

Had to laugh the other day when i saw the following tagged on the end of the economy section of the wikepedia entry for Thailand....

'Long stay foreign residents also contribute heavily to GDP'

I can just imagine some guy getting all indignant about the recent visa rule changes, and full of his own self importance tagging that on the end of a section that is talking in figures about the contribution of agriculture, industry and tourism.

Come on guys own up, which one of you was it? LOL

Some of the biggest tax payers here are foreigners. Foreigners in Thailand are not just some whinging sexpats in Pattaya. Some here do own and operate large companies.

[ColPyat]

I'll take another example, still Thailand related: the Crown Property Bureau.

If you take the wikipedia page: Bureau of the Crown Property, you will see that this article is not exactly nice with this institution.

Now have a look at the external links at the bottom of the page, you will see 2: the official website and Asia Sentinel's website.

Oh surprise, wikipedia's article is just the summarized version of Asia's Sentinel page, with the same references.

I don't say that what's in this article is not true, just that I cannot trust the content in this case, because the "million people waiting to correct your mate at the bar" factor obviously did not work.....

Actually an excellent example of a decent article on a very, very obscure topic. Imagine a reader outside of Thailand encountering a reference to the CPB. The Wiki article gives a brief overview of the institution, some brief comments of recent news related to the CPB, and further links. The article allows the casual reader who is unfamiliar with Thailand to place this Thai institution into some context and have it become become more than an anonymous acronym.

There is also a very extensive study in Thai available (around 100 pages) which deals with this subject in-depth.

Anyhow, Wikipedia is generally not allowed as reference material for academic studies, but it is absolutely sufficient for the type of discussions we have here. Some people may enjoy bashing Wikipedia, but usually they will also bash any academic study that does not support their mostly not very educated opinions.

[garro]

I remember going to this restaurant in Chiang Mai and there were lots of useful tips written on the toilet wall by people from all around the world. I wouldn't use it as a source reference though.

[Jet Gorgon]

(Actually, I suppose it would be possible for you to login, deliberately type a mistake in the article, than point it out here. However, the mistake would not be there tomorrow. So don't try it! )

I like this guy.

That's the whole point; anybody can post views/opinions on wiki and change the "facts" and people read them as the truth. Cockamamie crap. Sure, some of the info is true some of the time, but so is my dead watch -- it's correct twice a day. I do not like to read possibly correct info as it sticks in my head and when I read the correct info, my brain goes into refute mode. Sure, use Wiki for Brangelina baby updates, but use real sources for real research. Any writer, reporter, researcher knows to use at least three sources anyway, but I like to start with something verifiable.

[rychrde]

wikipedia is free, britannica is not (ok, free for 7 days...wow!)

If you're searching for an important piece of info then wiki is fine and then use it to narrow down your search. Real information costs real money to produce and real money to access... most of the time.

rych

[TAWP]

Jet Gordon>> Have you missed the part that all facts have to verifiable? So if that is the case, you can scroll down to the notes-section and find the sources and go from there. If you now are allergic to the concept of someone else writing a brief.

Edited May 28, 2007 by TAWP

[DP25]

Not a huge fan of Wiki. It's ok, but is very subject to individuals with an agenda pushing their point of view. While in some topics there are other people to balance it out, in many there are not and a handful of posters can have faulty or highly biased view published. There is no standard for verifying links, all it has to be is sourced, which in many cases is just a link to a newspaper article reporting what some researcher has claimed, regardless of how ridiculous that claim is. The prostitution in Thailand article, for example, claims there are 800,000 child prostitutes in Thailand, and the source is just a newspaper article quoting one researcher, and orders of magnitude higher than any other estimate, which normally claim 2-300k total and a small percentage of that underage. A lot of subjects are even worse. Some groups are seeking to downplay atrocities carried out by their ethnic or religious group, while others try to slander countries or religions they perceive as having wronged them. A lot of articles are changed almost daily, as posters fight and try to get their point of view published as fact. For things without any controversy, like the history of Star Wars or how to make peanut butter, Wiki is pretty good, but other articles should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Jet Gorgon]

Jet Gordon>> Have you missed the part that all facts have to verifiable? So if that is the case, you can scroll down to the notes-section and find the sources and go from there. If you now are allergic to the concept of someone else writing a brief.

Yep, I don't trust anybody. You only put one wrong letter in my name, missed one word and put a full stop where a comma belongs, TAWP, but niggly errors like that bother me; imagine kids or newbies reading "real" info that includes typos/misinfo like 1966 for the date of the Battle of Hastings, strawberry ice cream cauces cancer, or info from quack doctors advertising their remedies as the real cure for incurable diseases.

I work with stock analysts and economists every biz day and I call 'em on any inconsistency I see in their reports. One number typo or misquote can move the market and/or get the writer fired.

As I noted before, if it's an opinion, fine, include it as such. Crikes, I could go on Wiki and post a pic of a dog and call it a cat.

[A_Traveller]

Jet Gordon>> Have you missed the part that all facts have to verifiable? So if that is the case, you can scroll down to the notes-section and find the sources and go from there. If you now are allergic to the concept of someone else writing a brief.

Yep, I don't trust anybody. You only put one wrong letter in my name, missed one word and put a full stop where a comma belongs, TAWP, but niggly errors like that bother me; imagine kids or newbies reading "real" info that includes typos/misinfo like 1966 for the date of the Battle of Hastings, strawberry ice cream cauces cancer, or info from quack doctors advertising their remedies as the real cure for incurable diseases.

I work with stock analysts and economists every biz day and I call 'em on any inconsistency I see in their reports. One number typo or misquote can move the market and/or get the writer fired.

As I noted before, if it's an opinion, fine, include it as such. Crikes, I could go on Wiki and post a pic of a dog and call it a cat.

But your fatuous post would last a few minutes if that. As to sources, let us recall that, say, Lexis is not 100% either. Ultimately you are correct in that any single sourced piece of information should be treated with caution. However, it is increasingly rare for a page to have a single author, many contributors add to the page you see, and further one can see the trails of editing. The old saying three's a charm springs {sources} to mind here. However, the depth of knowledge and experience which is available through this source is extraordinary, and also allows those who might not know were to look initially for more clarification.

Regards

/edit clarity//

Edited May 28, 2007 by A_Traveller

[cdnvic]

That's the whole point; anybody can post views/opinions on wiki and change the "facts" and people read them as the truth. Cockamamie crap. Sure, some of the info is true some of the time, but so is my dead watch -- it's correct twice a day.

No need to bring Fox News into this.

[Furbie]

Had to laugh the other day when i saw the following tagged on the end of the economy section of the wikepedia entry for Thailand....

'Long stay foreign residents also contribute heavily to GDP'

I can just imagine some guy getting all indignant about the recent visa rule changes, and full of his own self importance tagging that on the end of a section that is talking in figures about the contribution of agriculture, industry and tourism.

Come on guys own up, which one of you was it? LOL

It was not me, but I happen to agree with it. Long term ex-pats, especially those who bring in earnings from outside of Thailand, make a significant contribution to the Thai economy. While I might not go so far as to say heavy contribution, even the poorest English teacher in Thailand makes 5-6 times the average Thai wage earner.

If you wouldn't go as far as to say 'heavy contribution', then in fact you don't agree with it, do you? Compared to the contribution of agriculture, various substantial industries and tourism, surely it's not that significant at all, and tourism only accounts for about 5%. And what does significant mean? Is a reduction in the number of long term foreign residents going to bring about another economic crisis? I don't think so, so in fact not that significant or 'heavy' at all, really, when you are talking about the GDP.

And as for the significant contribution of English teachers to the Thai GDP, LOL, give me a break!

First, the reason I say I agreed is that if we consider tourism heavy, then yes, expats make a heavy contribution – which is what I think was meant. However, the term significant is far more accurate, and should be used for tourism as well – agriculture would be heavy. I would not use the term heavy because it is not the correct term in this context, but I agree with the sentiment, which is absolutely correct.

Now, the numbers:

These numbers are fairly unscientific. If anyone has more exact numbers, please recalculate. Someone may wish to check my math as well.

There is something like 20,000 registered Americans living in Thailand – plus God knows how many unregistered (I know I am not registered) – I have heard estimates over 80,000. Plus the Birts, plus the Kiwis, plus Germans, plus, plus. So, let's assume we have something like 300,000 (which I think is low) long-term westerners in Thailand (obviously, this does not including the Japanese, Indians, etc, also significant – the largest Japanese expat community is in Thailand).

Now assume an average monthly income of 50,000 baht (again, I think low, teachers will make less, retirees more, and professionals a lot more).

For the sake of ease, let's change to USD using the 37.93 rate of exchange listed by the BoT for 2006 as we are working with 2006 GDP, again listed by BoT.

So 50,000 TB = 1,318.22 USD per month

1,318.22 x 12 months = 15,818.64 (again, I am not including bonuses for the non-retirees, so an underestimate).

15,818.64 x 300,000 = 4,745,592,000 or 4.75 billion USD to the Thai economy.

Thailand 2006 GDP = 4,043.6 billion TB / 37.93 = 115.53 billion USD.

So, Western expats contribute a conservative 4.11% of GDP in monthly funds - wow, almost as much as the generic tourism number, which captures some of the long-term expats as tourists.

Now, add all the Western funds to open business, buy condos, buy homes, (albeit in their GFs names, etc, etc,) wow – we are talking a lot of money.

Even the teachers by themselves at 30,000 baht a month would be adding a good chunk of change to the GDP; whether you want to believe it or not.

[Ulysses G.]

Wikipedia is the used car salesman of Internet info, IMO. Sure, some of the info is correct, but alot is not verifiable nor correct. I NEVER use Wiki as a source and I get angry when it comes up as the first site when I'm searching for info. Anyone can post info on this site, so if Dorkface Jake wants to take a swipe at Jackas Frank, he can upload his info as if it is fact, when it is really an opinion. If something is noted as an opinion, that's allowed. Not for phoney facts. In my view, Wiki is always flashy but just as shoddy. We fought over this issue before! 555

I noticed that Wikipedia went from saying that pedophiles are ONLY interested in sex with pre-pubesant children ( which is, say, under 10 or 11 years old ) a few years ago - which I think is clinically correct - to saying that anyone that even fantasizes about having sex with someone who is under 18 is a possible pedophile.

Sounds like politically correct hogwash to me.

[Jet Gorgon]

That's Foxy Wiki, keeping up with the times. This site should link up with Reader's Digest; then everyone will come out of the toilet relieved, with a joke and a "look how smart I am" piece of phoney information.

[Furbie]

Had to laugh the other day when i saw the following tagged on the end of the economy section of the wikepedia entry for Thailand....

'Long stay foreign residents also contribute heavily to GDP'

I can just imagine some guy getting all indignant about the recent visa rule changes, and full of his own self importance tagging that on the end of a section that is talking in figures about the contribution of agriculture, industry and tourism.

Come on guys own up, which one of you was it? LOL

It was not me, but I happen to agree with it. Long term ex-pats, especially those who bring in earnings from outside of Thailand, make a significant contribution to the Thai economy. While I might not go so far as to say heavy contribution, even the poorest English teacher in Thailand makes 5-6 times the average Thai wage earner.

If you wouldn't go as far as to say 'heavy contribution', then in fact you don't agree with it, do you? Compared to the contribution of agriculture, various substantial industries and tourism, surely it's not that significant at all, and tourism only accounts for about 5%. And what does significant mean? Is a reduction in the number of long term foreign residents going to bring about another economic crisis? I don't think so, so in fact not that significant or 'heavy' at all, really, when you are talking about the GDP.

And as for the significant contribution of English teachers to the Thai GDP, LOL, give me a break!

First, the reason I say I agreed is that if we consider tourism heavy, then yes, expats make a heavy contribution – which is what I think was meant. However, the term significant is far more accurate, and should be used for tourism as well – agriculture would be heavy. I would not use the term heavy because it is not the correct term in this context, but I agree with the sentiment, which is absolutely correct.

Now, the numbers:

These numbers are fairly unscientific. If anyone has more exact numbers, please recalculate. Someone may wish to check my math as well.

There is something like 20,000 registered Americans living in Thailand – plus God knows how many unregistered (I know I am not registered) – I have heard estimates over 80,000. Plus the Birts, plus the Kiwis, plus Germans, plus, plus. So, let's assume we have something like 300,000 (which I think is low) long-term westerners in Thailand (obviously, this does not including the Japanese, Indians, etc, also significant – the largest Japanese expat community is in Thailand).

Now assume an average monthly income of 50,000 baht (again, I think low, teachers will make less, retirees more, and professionals a lot more).

For the sake of ease, let's change to USD using the 37.93 rate of exchange listed by the BoT for 2006 as we are working with 2006 GDP, again listed by BoT.

So 50,000 TB = 1,318.22 USD per month

1,318.22 x 12 months = 15,818.64 (again, I am not including bonuses for the non-retirees, so an underestimate).

15,818.64 x 300,000 = 4,745,592,000 or 4.75 billion USD to the Thai economy.

Thailand 2006 GDP = 4,043.6 billion TB / 37.93 = 115.53 billion USD.

So, Western expats contribute a conservative 4.11% of GDP in monthly funds - wow, almost as much as the generic tourism number, which captures some of the long-term expats as tourists.

Now, add all the Western funds to open business, buy condos, buy homes, (albeit in their GFs names, etc, etc,) wow – we are talking a lot of money.

Even the teachers by themselves at 30,000 baht a month would be adding a good chunk of change to the GDP; whether you want to believe it or not.

I used the wrong GDP number and had to recalculate (I inadvertently used the 1998 pricing).

The estimated GPD for 2006 is 7,813.1 billion baht – or 205.98 billion USD – though other estimates are lower.

Which makes my underestimate Western contribution to Thai GDP at 2.31%, which is still significant in my book. Again, once you add spending from sources outside of Thailand and other expats, it is even more significant.

Apologies for getting the number wrong. I try to limit my TV time to 2 hours, 1 in the morning and 1 in the afternoon and rushed this.

Again, please check my numbers.

[John_Rambo]

First, the reason I say I agreed is that if we consider tourism heavy, then yes, expats make a heavy contribution – which is what I think was meant. However, the term significant is far more accurate, and should be used for tourism as well – agriculture would be heavy. I would not use the term heavy because it is not the correct term in this context, but I agree with the sentiment, which is absolutely correct.

But if you don't agree with what was said, then how can the sentiment be correct? It's not. If it said foreign residents make a contribution, then the sentiment would be correct. Even then, it doesn't really deserve a mention in that section. You are right, the likes of industry and agriculture do make a heavy contribution, to hold up the contribution of foreign residents and describe it as 'heavy' in the same paragraph, is more than pushing it a bit.

The section i am talking about would appear to actually be a summary of a more detailed article on wikipedia titled 'the economy of Thailand'. In that, tourism is described as significant, but funnily enough there is no mention of this heavy contribution of long term residents to the Thai GDP. It's clearly just been tagged on the end of the economy section on the main page, and is quite incongruous.

As for your figures, no offense intended, but i'm not even going to bother, because they are largely plucked out of the air, and arguing over them would be pointless.

[Furbie]

First, the reason I say I agreed is that if we consider tourism heavy, then yes, expats make a heavy contribution – which is what I think was meant. However, the term significant is far more accurate, and should be used for tourism as well – agriculture would be heavy. I would not use the term heavy because it is not the correct term in this context, but I agree with the sentiment, which is absolutely correct.

But if you don't agree with what was said, then how can the sentiment be correct? It's not. If it said foreign residents make a contribution, then the sentiment would be correct. Even then, it doesn't really deserve a mention in that section. You are right, the likes of industry and agriculture do make a heavy contribution, to hold up the contribution of foreign residents and describe it as 'heavy' in the same paragraph, is more than pushing it a bit.

The section i am talking about would appear to actually be a summary of a more detailed article on wikipedia titled 'the economy of Thailand'. In that, tourism is described as significant, but funnily enough there is no mention of this heavy contribution of long term residents to the Thai GDP. It's clearly just been tagged on the end of the economy section on the main page, and is quite incongruous.

As for your figures, no offense intended, but i'm not even going to bother, because they are largely plucked out of the air, and arguing over them would be pointless.

As to the point as to whether I agree with something or not, I think I would be the best person to determine that – and I agree with the sentiment, as I said. Whether you want to deny it or not, expats make a significant contribution to the Thai economy. I did not read the article reference, so I was basing my statement on the inferences I took away from your post.

As for the numbers, they are reasonable assumptions based on available information – such as how much someone needs to earn for a work permit (again, an underestimate, as an American, I need to earn 80k per month I believe, though English teachers are not subject to this requirement to my knowledge), how much you need for a retirement visa, etc. If someone has better information, we can always adjust. However, I low balled all the numbers and did not include anything beyond basic monthly income – not to mention I am sure a portion of the tourism numbers are being captured by long-term expat spending.

If you disagree with the numbers, please state which numbers you disagree with. The number of Western expats, the amount of money earned or contributed to the Thai economy each month, Thai GDP for 2006. Let me know. Since you claim I pulled them out of the air, it should be easy to refute them