RE: HIST: SPEC: Clovis is Louis?

Robert,

Perhaps my suspiciousness comes from being involved with the online world
for many years starting with a speedy 300 baud modem and FIDONET via local
BBS's. Perhaps the jaundiced eye came even prior to that seeing dis- and
mis-information published in books that was fairly easy to ferret out based
on personal observations, or just keeping current with the news. Attribution
of sources is everything, from the simple (pers. comm.) to a full blown foot
note and bibliography at the end of the work. It gives one a trail to
follow.

It has been a while since I've done any serious writing, but the information
I used from sources was always checked and double checked prior to placing
it in my work. If the observations were based on personal experience, it was
so stated.

Now, if you take a look at this list, you do find a number of people here
who are posting. Some of them are asking novice type questions (which is
good), and there are those who are really getting into the science of it
(look at some of the hybridization threads, for example). While I read
threads here as an interested bystander, for the most part, the science,
does seem to be good, or headed in the right direction (I've messed with
animal genetics in the past, and probably will do so in the future, but
plants have a different set of genes, so some comparisons are probably not
valid). Here, all posts are signed with a name (or pseudonym) and the e-mail
address of the writer is readily available.

If we went to wikipedia, there could be articles on same--irises, iris
genetics, iris hybridization, etc. (I don't know, I haven't looked). If you
were to read the articles, you may find errors in them. If that is the case,
you can correct said errors, but, someone can come right in behind you and
correct your correction. Very little is given in the way of attribution of
the various "facts" that might be stated within the articles. I went up
there the other day and searched a couple of topics I am familiar with, and
they were fairly accurate, but if they were not, I would have been able to
register, log in, and make an edit.

Now, there are differences between the list and wikipedia. Wikipedia will
suffer from the "attack of the lowest common denominator" if three is no
watch guard at the gate, so to speak, and the medium will suffer as a
result. Here, there are people who will raise that "lowest common
denominator" and statements can be argued out, in public, until, at least, a
consensus is reached that all involved can agree upon. Wikipedia, does not
seem to have that kind of "fact checking" going on, at least not in the
open--one may need to be registered to have access to such discussion, if it
does exist.

There are many sources of information on the Net that are credible, but like
anything else, you need to look for them, and, maybe even pay for them (like
the $10 a year (that's what it is, isn't it) to have access to the database
that some dedicated people have been working on).

Sorry for wandering here, just in that sort of mood lately.

\\Steve// 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-iris@hort.net [o*@hort.net] On Behalf Of Robt R
Pries
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 8:07 AM
To: iris@hort.net
Subject: RE: [iris] HIST: SPEC: Clovis is Louis?

Steve you could not be more wrong, when you say the
big stink over the wikipedia is made by those that
have the most to loose. I have spent the last ten
years of my life working on checklists for the Iris
society. I hesitate to think how much it has cost me
personally. I have always given this information out
freely and have never made a cent off of it. What
drives me is creating resources that have information
available that is accurate and accessible. I admire
the concept of the wikipedia and regret that like so
many other things hoaxters and prankster and people
with adgendas have begun using this to play with
peoples minds. Of course you are correct that an
attributed fact is more likely to be correct than one
in which there is no stated source. But in this
computor age it is so easy for misinformation to be
spread in an instant it is hard to give credence to
much that is on the internet. Considering all the
urban mythes, and political dysinformation. It does
not mean that someone has a vested interest to be
suspicious of anything on the internet. But perhaps
you are appropriately suspicious considering the
comment was amde in an e-mail.

--- Steve Szabo <steve@familyszabo.com> wrote:

> It is not a problem with wikipedia, any more than it
> is a problem with any
> book you would buy or borrow. The same things happen
> in both places. As it
> goes, whether using a book as a resource, or the
> web, check and double check
> the information you find. If sources are not cited,
> than any information is
> suspect, unless you trust the author of said
> information. 
> 
> In my mind, the big stink over a source such as
> wikipedia is made by those
> who have the most to lose by dissemination of
> information for no cost vs.
> the cost that had previously been applied to it.
> 
> 
> \\Steve// 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-iris@hort.net
> [o*@hort.net] On Behalf Of Robt R
> Pries
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:55 PM
> To: iris@hort.net
> Subject: Re: [iris] HIST: SPEC: Clovis is Louis?
> 
> There is a rather unfortunate side to 'Wikipedia'
> information. It is not attributed to an author. In
> fact it is made from many authors and the
> credentials
> of any of them are unknown. Unfortunately it was
> recently shown that people have used the wikipedia
> to
> promote their own ideas whether well-founded or not.
> I
> wish it were a better source but it is now highly
> quetionable whether information gathered there has
> any
> credibility at all. 
> 
> --- ChatOWhitehall@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > Greetings.
> >  
> > I ran into something thought provoking the other
> day
> > when I followed a  link 
> > in a Wikipedia article I was reading.
> >  
> > Many may well be sick unto death of the hoary
> > question of the  origin of the 
> > Fleur-de-Lis and whether it is or is not an Iris. 
> > Clarence reminded us 
> > several years ago in Roots of Mrs. Peckham's 
> > discovery of the use of a similar 
> > motif in Roman iconography--a 
> "Sprout"--associated
> > with the demi-goddess 
> > Spes--Hope-- and he has expanded that  research
> > along other useful and interesting 
> > lines as well. I myself think  it is an even older
> > motif, albeit one associated 
> > with a crop god,  Triptolemus. Crop gods always
> tend
> > to involve notions of Hope.
> >  
> > Much ink has been devoted to the legend of King
> > Clovis and the origin  of the 
> > phrase Fleur de Lis-- Lys-- Luce-- with some
> > versions of the name as  Fleur 
> > de Louis and so on and so forth forever with
> > variations right up to  the 
> > display of the golden motif on the banner of the
> > Bourbon kings of  France. The iris 
> > generally thought to be the Iris of Clovis, if  he
> > actually had one, is Iris 
> > pseudacorus, the magnificent golden flag,  now in
> > some juridictions deemed a 
> > noxious weed.  
> >  
> > Anyway, what the article in Wiki suggests is that
> > the evolution of  language 
> > may play a highly meaningful role in the story. In
> > other  words, the Fleur de 
> > Louis may be the Fleur de Clovis. I  don't have
> > enough background in this area 
> > to do other than toss  out the link for the
> > amusement of any who may be 
> > intrigued. This may  actually be old news to many.
> > Possibly even I  once knew it 
> > and forgot  it, which happens from time to time as
> > my memory becomes more and 
> > more like  a pack rat's nest. 
> >  
> > _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_I_ 
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_I) 
> >  
> > Cordially,
> >  
> > Anner Whitehead
> > Richmond VA USA 
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off this list, send email to
> majordomo@hort.net with the
> message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index