Convenience is Not a Good Excuse to Use Low-Quality Wikipedia Webarticles. Mr. Lundahl Needs to Strive for Scholarly Excellence
Kevin R. Henke
October 3, 2022
In Henke (2022s), Henke (2022at), and Henke (2022fq), I criticized Mr. Lundahl’s use of Wikipedia articles because they are too often inadequate resources for our debate, especially articles such as “Parallel Lives” that have noticeably incomplete referencing. As I stated in Henke (2022fq):
“Wikipedia may provide very useful references to the peer-reviewed literature on various topics and, when verified, the summaries in Wikipedia articles may be quite good. The photographs and maps in Wikipedia are often excellent and, best of all, they are usually in the public domain. So, the quality of the webarticles in Wikipedia must be judged on a case-by-case basis. However, the “Parallel Lives” article cited by Lundahl (2022d) is poorly referenced and is totally unsuitable as a source. Mr. Lundahl should have known better than to cite it.”
Yet, Lundahl (2022q) stubbornly refuses to avoid these convenient, but low quality, webarticles. Instead, he should be using peer-reviewed books and articles. The topic of Wikipedia reemerges after I make the following statements in Henke (2022at):
“Why does he often avoid them and prefer less reliable sources, such as Wikipedia articles or outdated 18th to 19th century religious books, such as the opinions of 18th century Bishop Richard Challoner? He lives in Paris and certainly he should be able to find a University or other library with science journals. Why does he trust ancient histories, Wikipedia and other websites, but not modern archeology? Why does he trust C.S. Lewis? Why does he blindly trust Kent Hovind, who has no legitimate training in science? Why doesn’t he use Strahler (1999) or other science textbooks for legitimate information on science and the scientific method instead?” [my emphasis]
As usual, Lundahl (2022r) breaks up this paragraph into fragments and comments on some of the parts. In response to the bolded phrase, Lundahl (2022r) states:
“I would argue, wikipedians overall are a less narrow group than any given reference with any given peer review. They are also easier to check. I would say that Henke's references are often longer works and I have so much time to dedicate to my debate with Henke, I am NOT treating him as any kind of Academic mentor, and I do not want him to imagine he can treat me as if I were or as if I ought to be doing so.”
If Mr. Lundahl does not have the time or desire to contribute to a debate with high-quality references rather than questionable and possibly erroneous Wikipedia sources, why is he debating me? If he cannot contribute his best efforts to this debate, why is he debating me? If he cannot meet minimal academic standards, such as would be expected for a thesis or journal article, why is he debating me? How is Mr. Lundahl qualified to participate in this debate? Why should we believe what he says when his sources are frequently decades or centuries out-of-date or poorly documented?
Reference:
Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy: 2nd ed., Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 552 pp.