Wikipedia as a source, Demographics as a subject

awood91

Active Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
404
Reaction score
341
Wow no one can argue with your logic
People who object to Wikipedia as a 'good source' categorically don't understand how Wikipedia works. Most articles are well cited, and therefore it is perfectly acceptable to cite Wikipedia informally, which is how this conversation started. Sure, you can't cite the Wikipedia article itself, but many if not most Wikipedia articles are a great resource to find quality citations. I said OK boomer because any internet-savvy person already understands this about Wikipedia.
 
Last edited:

DZH22

Superstar
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
11,235
Reaction score
27,038
I said OK boomer because any internet-savvy person already understands this about Wikipedia.
I'm only 40 (technically the oldest millennial) but I find "OK boomer" to be wildly disrespectful. Like, the end-of-civilized-society disrespectful. I sure hope you don't actually use this saying in person. It's already bad enough over the internet, but I couldn't even imagine responding to my parents, aunts, uncles, teachers, etc in a manner that completely writes them off. The young disrespecting the old is absolutely disgusting.
 

awood91

Active Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
404
Reaction score
341
I'm only 40 (technically the oldest millennial) but I find "OK boomer" to be wildly disrespectful. Like, the end-of-civilized-society disrespectful. I sure hope you don't actually use this saying in person. It's already bad enough over the internet, but I couldn't even imagine responding to my parents, aunts, uncles, teachers, etc in a manner that completely writes them off. The young disrespecting the old is absolutely disgusting.
I'm sorry it triggers you. I am not sure how it is that crazy disrespectful other than it is dismissive, a sentiment that can be conveyed in a number of severely more disrespectful ways, IMO. This might be the sixth time in my 31-year old life that I've used OK boomer, online or IRL. I hope you understand how it relates to the bogus Wikipedia claim, I didn't say it for no reason - and it was playful in this context. I obviously have no idea how old the person who posed about Wikipedia is lol and you had no idea how old I am, so again, sorry for triggering.
 
Last edited:

HenryAlan

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
2,478
I'm only 40 (technically the oldest millennial) but I find "OK boomer" to be wildly disrespectful. Like, the end-of-civilized-society disrespectful. I sure hope you don't actually use this saying in person. It's already bad enough over the internet, but I couldn't even imagine responding to my parents, aunts, uncles, teachers, etc in a manner that completely writes them off. The young disrespecting the old is absolutely disgusting.
I may not see it quite as poorly as you do, but mostly agree that it is dismissive and ignorant. I do think it can occasionally succeed as a joke, but only when everybody knows that's the intent. Although I think that may have been the intent in this case, tonality is not really something we can convey on an on-line forum.
 

Patrick Winn

Active Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
196
Reaction score
362
Yeah. Wikipedia is a fine enough source for casual information that’s factual and relatively easy to cross reference.
Wikipedia is the best source of information I know
So trust Wikipedia, a website that literally anyone can add information to, over actual university and government-conducted research?? Ok, great plan.
I consider Wikipedia the most reliable source of information that exists. It's edited by experts and most subjects are closed to editing once finished.
 

bigpicture7

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
3,288
Reaction score
6,320
I may not see it quite as poorly as you do, but mostly agree that it is dismissive and ignorant. I do think it can occasionally succeed as a joke, but only when everybody knows that's the intent. Although I think that may have been the intent in this case, tonality is not really something we can convey on an on-line forum.
Cross-generational disrespect has been going on since the dawn of humanity ("your generation is hopelessly inexperienced and naive," "your generation is hopelessly out of touch and stuck in the past"). "OK boomer" is nothing more than a contemporary way of tossing this same form of disrespect that has existed for a long time. I hold strong values about the importance of conveying respect, especially in the context of trying hard to avoid pre-judging (and am inclined, therefore, to avoid the term). Yet, as I have recently worked in a notably cross-generational environment (bimodal distribution heavy on very experienced + a large number of Gen Z's), I have found it especially useful to actually lean into the cross-generational debate in a fun and respectful way. "Alright, before you lob an 'ok boomer,' let's wholeheartedly discuss whether and how ____ still matters today"). I've found this sort of dialogue actually engages my Gen-Z colleagues and gets them critically thinking and talking about what is enduring, versus what is obsolete, in a way that wouldn't happen if we simply avoided the cross-generational dialogue.
 

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
3,686
Reaction score
4,273
Cross-generational disrespect has been going on since the dawn of humanity ("your generation is hopelessly inexperienced and naive," "your generation is hopelessly out of touch and stuck in the past"). "OK boomer" is nothing more than a contemporary way of tossing this same form of disrespect that has existed for a long time. I hold strong values about the importance of conveying respect, especially in the context of trying hard to avoid pre-judging (and am inclined, therefore, to avoid the term). Yet, as I have recently worked in a notably cross-generational environment (bimodal distribution heavy on very experienced + a large number of Gen Z's), I have found it especially useful to actually lean into the cross-generational debate in a fun and respectful way. "Alright, before you lob an 'ok boomer,' let's wholeheartedly discuss whether and how ____ still matters today"). I've found this sort of dialogue actually engages my Gen-Z colleagues and gets them critically thinking and talking about what is enduring, versus what is obsolete, in a way that wouldn't happen if we simply avoided the cross-generational dialogue.
I agree, the cross-generational friction has been going on forever, which it probably should. Except of course, a modicum of civility and respect is always a good thing. I'm 73, but when I was in my teens and twenties, the generational divide over the Vietnam war and other major issues at the time was huge, with the "you can't trust anyone over 30" meme going on big time. So the baby boomers were as guilty of initiating inter-generational disrespect as anyone. Its just something that will always be a part of the human condition, it probably does serve a useful purpose, and we have to manage it to be within workable boundaries.
 

Rover

Active Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
953
Reaction score
314
A few thoughts:

1) okay, boomer is pretty funny
2) I don't think the census is doing an actual count every year, it's just an estimate based on....? FWIW their estimate leading up to the actual count in 2020 way underestimated Massachusetts population growth.
3) This building will be a welcome addition to the skyline.

Carry on!
 

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
5,579
Reaction score
2,643
It probably won't surprise you to know that I'm an active, longtime Wikipedia editor, as well as a Mod here.
If one consults Strauss-Howe Generational Theory, I'm Gen X because my parents are clearly Silent Generation, (I also miss the strict cutoff for Boomer by a year)

While Wikipedia is a great source for most topics, I don't recommend Wikipedia for citing numbers, since editors are less likely to say "that doesn't look right" or "that looks out of date" Wiki editors are NOT good at catching number typos and don’t do a good job of keeping number’s current and correctly sourced.

If you claim "I got this number from Wikipedia!" can I ask that you check wikipedia's source link and actually go and get it where it was actually tabulated? That's usually the US Census or the NBER or Bureau of Labor Statistics, and so you know you're getting the freshest number from a source that 1) doesn't need filtration 2)typically doesn't benefit from Wikipedia editing
 
Last edited:

bigpicture7

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
3,288
Reaction score
6,320
It probably won't surprise you to know that I'm an active, longtime Wikipedia editor, as well as a Mod here.
If one consults Strauss-Howe Generational Theory, I'm Gen X because my parents are clearly Silent Generation, (I also miss the strict cutoff for Boomer by a year)

While Wikipedia is a great source for most topics, I don't recommend Wikipedia for citing numbers, since editors are less likely to say "that doesn't look right" or "that looks out of date"

If you claim "I got this number from Wikipedia!" can I ask that you check wikipedia's source link and actually go and get it where it was actually tabulated? That's usually the US Census or the NBER or Bureau of Labor Statistics, and so you know you're getting the freshest number from a source that 1) doesn't need filtration 2)typically doesn't benefit from Wikipedia editing
1) First off, thanks very much for your service, both as a Mod here and as a Wikipedia editor
2) Wholeheartedly agree with the advice/caveats about citing Wikipedia, but to expand on it if I may, Wikipedia has a ton of value as a balanced and moderated aggregator of information. So it's a reasonable early-stage resource for inquiring about something. So, and as you say, when actually citing something, one should cite the sources that Wikipedia is listing, not Wikipedia itself. Yet I do want to comment on what I sense is the origin for some of the enthusiasm upthread for Wikipedia: it is one of the few places in today's toxically polarized world where different sides come together in a reasonably productive manner to agree upon a balanced set of descriptive information about a given topic. Its identity is to be rigorously neutral, and the type of people who contribute there tend to respect the credibility and validity of such agreed-upon neutrality (or, at least those whose contributions actually make it through). It is hard to find other sources with such an agenda (or lack thereof), so I share the admiration for Wikipedia as a source that others have above.
 

Top