Talk:Wikiality.com Study Group Research Study Group

From Wikiality

Should this be a game-like activity? Maybe get folks to submit research proposals? Submit research papers? Perhaps hold an Scientific Conference™ right here on wikiality.com? :) Lots of possibilities... Bi 09:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make it a game, be sure to include some examples, so that others may know what works and what doesn't. Probably best to make one section the "game", like maybe, future studies, or something.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 09:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's just a quick idea I'm throwing out just for the sake of it. :) One possibility is to do some sort of journal — maybe like the God-fearing Answers Research Journal except with a wider scope of topics. But asking people to write up and submit research papers (even truthy ones) seems a bit of a tall order, so maybe I should try to think of another idea... Bi 14:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean like Bible Study on stuff like "Banking is evil"? Or, pseudo scientific study on stuff like "How humans coexisted with dinosaurs before the great flood" study?--66.135.37.47 16:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I've not thought about that question — I'm more familiar with the "scientific" type of paper, and after all there's quite a big tidy sample of real-world crank papers lately on scientific subjects such as 2nd-hand tobacco, DDT, global warming, the Iraq death toll, ...

Though I guess a "banking is evil" paper which looks like it can come from a respectable scholarly publication in the field of history — or literature, or both — might be a fun thing too. :) But what does WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer (and others) think? Bi 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, here's an "abstract" I wrote up on Crooked Timber a while back:

A recent study by Burnham et al. claimed that Iraq mortality rates were higher after the US intervention into Iraq than before. In this paper, we attempt to show that Burnham et al.’s results cannot be replicated; and even if they can be replicated, the definition of crude mortality rate (CMR) they used is a wrong one; and even if it is not a wrong one, the very fact that Burnham et al. refuse to release their data to Gourley et al. proves that their results are bogus; and even if they do send their data to Gourley et al., it does not invalidate any of the rest of the breadth of academic criticism against the Lancet papers; and even if it does invalidate the rest of the breadth of academic criticism against the Lancet papers, the truth remains that the Lancet papers are bad for freedom and capitalism and the American Way.

:) Bi 04:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, do the papers really have to "exist" beyond the mention on this page? Why not have some fun with the idea? Make up names for "studies" that should exist. Something: like "Likelihood of Choking In Championship Game Proportionate to Number of Pussies Playing Quarterback, Wikiality.com Study Finds" or "Wikiality.com Study Group Finds Professional Football Championships Won By Teams With Fewer Pussies" (just a few examples--cough) And perhaps including an abstract. Nothing big. I do have a question now, how can they can be more than news articles backed by truthy science?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 04:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you ask me, I guess the key thing will be to add more gravitas to the paper titles (and the abstracts). Let me give this a try: "On the Relationship Between Labia Count and Asphyxiation During Professional Football Games". Then add an abstract, call it a technical report (if it's supposed to be an internal thing, that is), and... it should be ready for mindless propagation! Bi 05:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, gravitas is always good. Well put, btw. As a Wikiality.com game-like activity, the simpler it is, the more "hits" it will get. The games are more like top ten lists, that people are invited to add to. The title should sound scientific, but then the abstract is more like a "reveal" showing the truthiness behind all the pomp of the title.

How you could "introduce" the game, might begin with a formal "invitation" to Scientific-truthyologists to submit papers on a given topic (say the Super Bowl), give an example or two and then open it up for submissions. It took a while before "Write A Caption" took off, so allow for adjustments.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 05:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've got it up and running — sort of. :) Bi 09:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Good start, full of gravitas, let's give the "game" a few more examples, before we judge it further...maybe you can link to the "study" on the "news" page?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 09:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there seem to be quite a number of news pages, and I'm not sure which one(s) to add to... Bi 09:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)