Ecology B/C

[nerpas]

The Extinction Vortex

That sounds intense. (googling time !)

The main things that have thrown me off were things that really shouldn't, i.e. there was so much crammed onto my note sheet I couldn't find anything.
Me and my partner are convinced that state had a bad test...by "bad test" we mean we were bad at it . (But there actually wasn't anything particularly crazy, I just didn't study the right stuff)

[gneissisnice]

The Extinction Vortex

Basically, that's when a population hits a low point where it's basically impossible for the birth rate to exceed the death rate, and once that point is hit, extinction is inevitable (unless there's intervention by humans by breeding in captivity, but that doesn't guarantee that they'll live either).

[geekychic13]

Wikipedia is honestly the best source of information for any scio event.

People say it's unreliable because it can be changed, but the scio stuff is so esoteric that no prankster is ever gonna visit those pages anyway.

It is unreliable, simply because you cannot rely on any of the information being accurate. That's just the nature of an openly editable website. Vandals are not the issue with SO-related articles; it's the quality of the information in the first place. Much of it is written by people who don't have any formal qualifications in the subjects, so they might be leaving out key topics or making common mistakes, even if they use reliable resources and have good intentions.

Nevertheless, Wikipedia often has quite good articles, but it should always be cross-referenced with other sources.

you know what I think? i think that I don't want to sit on my butt all day trying to see if all 26 pages of the wikipedia article I'm reading are accurate by cross-referencing them with resources that are more unreliable than wikipedia
.......because there are always bibliographys on the wikipedia pages, and if there is an edit without a source, wikipedia will tell you whereas www.thiswebsiteisaslessfalsifiedthanwikipedia.com doesn't have one. so yeah. go with the wiki, and also, you're not exactly properly qualified to edit a wikipedia page either, and I doubt you know the people who edited the articles, so how can you say they don't know anything about the subject? we don't all live under rocks, you know. but for those people who have succeeded in getting their Ph.D. degree in Perfect, bravo! you can edit a wikipedia page now!
bottom point is, don't try to sound all "greater than thou" when you're trying to sound like you actually know something you can't back up

[geekychic13]

Wikipedia is honestly the best source of information for any scio event.

People say it's unreliable because it can be changed, but the scio stuff is so esoteric that no prankster is ever gonna visit those pages anyway.

It is unreliable, simply because you cannot rely on any of the information being accurate. That's just the nature of an openly editable website. Vandals are not the issue with SO-related articles; it's the quality of the information in the first place. Much of it is written by people who don't have any formal qualifications in the subjects, so they might be leaving out key topics or making common mistakes, even if they use reliable resources and have good intentions.

Nevertheless, Wikipedia often has quite good articles, but it should always be cross-referenced with other sources.

you know what I think? i think that I don't want to sit on my butt all day staring at a tiny little computer screen trying to see if all 26 pages of the wikipedia article I'm reading are accurate by cross-referencing them with resources that are more unreliable than wikipedia
.......because there are always bibliographys on the wikipedia pages, and if there is an edit without a source, wikipedia will tell you whereas http://www.thiswebsiteisaslessfalsified ... ipedia.com doesn't have one. so yeah. go with the wiki, and also, you're not exactly properly qualified to edit a wikipedia page either, and I doubt you know the people who edited the articles, so how can you say they don't know anything about the subject? we don't all live under rocks, you know. but for those people who have succeeded in getting their Ph.D. degree in Perfect, bravo! you can edit a wikipedia page now!
bottom point is, don't try to sound all "greater than thou" when you're trying to sound like you actually know something you can't back up

[Paradox21]

Plus, lots of test writers use Wikipedia as well. So you will want to know the wrong information you will be tested on.

[amerikestrel]

Woah, geekychic13. No need to get so defensive.

.......because there are always bibliographys on the wikipedia pages, and if there is an edit without a source, wikipedia will tell you whereas http://www.thiswebsiteisaslessfalsified ... ipedia.com doesn't have one.

First, there aren't always citations on Wiki articles, especially when they're short or on ecstortic topics. When there are citations, they aren't always reliable sources. On the other hand, a journal article or a .gov/.edu site has a much higher probability of being thorough and accurate.

so yeah. go with the wiki, and also, you're not exactly properly qualified to edit a wikipedia page either, and I doubt you know the people who edited the articles, so how can you say they don't know anything about the subject?

I never said Wikipedia editors don't know anything about the subject; you completely misunderstood me. All I said was that most editors don't have any formal qualifications in the subject. That means is that there is a greater chance of them leaving key points out or making mistakes. Remember, none of Wikipedia is written professionally.

I am a fairly active editor; I have over 2500 edits and I've written several pages myself (mostly on birds). Doing research and then writing about something, or just reading articles, is a great way to learn more about a topic. Most of the Wiki editors I've met are highly intelligent and knowledgable. But due to its nature of being openly editable, it is de facto unreliable.

bottom point is, don't try to sound all "greater than thou" when you're trying to sound like you actually know something you can't back up

I apologize if I came off as condescending, but I obviously can back up what I'm saying. I'm a huge supporter of Wikipedia, but I'm also a supporter of it being used correctly, so you might have misunderstood my position.

Plus, lots of test writers use Wikipedia as well. So you will want to know the wrong information you will be tested on.

Good point, but you should still know if it's wrong (and, hopefully, correct it!).

[geekychic13]

Okay, I'm not going to post everything you said, because it's way to long and not worth the effort. Didn't I say if something wasn't cited that Wikipedia would tell you? You should know that after 2500 edits. Also, if you think that Wikipedia is not reliable, then why are you editing? Are you one of those jokers who posts fake info? Or are you one of the people with a Ph.D. in Perfect? Just putting things in your perspective. Also, I just told you that you shouldn't try to sound "greater than thou" and yet you're doing it again. At first you said that most editors didn't have former qualifications, and yet you say now that most of them actually are good at this.

[amerikestrel]

Okay, I'm not going to post everything you said, because it's way to long and not worth the effort. Didn't I say if something wasn't cited that Wikipedia would tell you? You should know that after 2500 edits. Also, if you think that Wikipedia is not reliable, then why are you editing? Are you one of those jokers who posts fake info? Or are you one of the people with a Ph.D. in Perfect? Just putting things in your perspective. Also, I just told you that you shouldn't try to sound "greater than thou" and yet you're doing it again. At first you said that most editors didn't have former qualifications, and yet you say now that most of them actually are good at this.

The simple fact is that Wikipedia is not reliable. If something is reliable, you can rely on it to always be trustworthy and accurate. This is not true of Wikipedia, because there are vandals, and there is misinformation. Yes, there are citations, but you can't always trust that the article will be from those sources or that those sources will be reliable. That's just the truth, and anyone who has experience in wiki editing will tell you that.

Now, this doesn't make Wikipedia a bad resource. In fact, its continuous state of flux and open-editing system often makes it more up-to-date and less biased than reliable sources. It has easy navigation, and anyone can participate in working on articles. There are so many benefits of using Wikipedia. However, due its format, everything must be taken with a grain of salt.

Why do I edit? Because it's one of the best ways for me to learn. Researching something thoroughly, then writing about it in a way that's easily accessible is a really enlightening experience. You'll never forget the material. Plus, I really like Wikipedia's philosophy of making information available to everyone. I like to feel that I'm a part of it.

Having formal qualifications is different than just being smart or interested in a topic. Most of the active, "hardcore" editors are intelligent and friendly. There are also millions of anonymous editors, and most of them don't have formal qualifications. That doesn't mean everything they say is wrong, and it doesn't mean they're all vandals. But from a purely statistical standpoint, a random anonymous editor will have a lower probability of being accurate than a published, qualified scientist will.

[gneissisnice]

Okay, I'm not going to post everything you said, because it's way to long and not worth the effort. Didn't I say if something wasn't cited that Wikipedia would tell you? You should know that after 2500 edits. Also, if you think that Wikipedia is not reliable, then why are you editing? Are you one of those jokers who posts fake info? Or are you one of the people with a Ph.D. in Perfect? Just putting things in your perspective. Also, I just told you that you shouldn't try to sound "greater than thou" and yet you're doing it again. At first you said that most editors didn't have former qualifications, and yet you say now that most of them actually are good at this.

The simple fact is that Wikipedia is not reliable. If something is reliable, you can rely on it to always be trustworthy and accurate. This is not true of Wikipedia, because there are vandals, and there is misinformation. Yes, there are citations, but you can't always trust that the article will be from those sources or that those sources will be reliable. That's just the truth, and anyone who has experience in wiki editing will tell you that.

Now, this doesn't make Wikipedia a bad resource. In fact, its continuous state of flux and open-editing system often makes it more up-to-date and less biased than reliable sources. It has easy navigation, and anyone can participate in working on articles. There are so many benefits of using Wikipedia. However, due its format, everything must be taken with a grain of salt.

Why do I edit? Because it's one of the best ways for me to learn. Researching something thoroughly, then writing about it in a way that's easily accessible is a really enlightening experience. You'll never forget the material. Plus, I really like Wikipedia's philosophy of making information available to everyone. I like to feel that I'm a part of it.

Having formal qualifications is different than just being smart or interested in a topic. Most of the active, "hardcore" editors are intelligent and friendly. There are also millions of anonymous editors, and most of them don't have formal qualifications. That doesn't mean everything they say is wrong, and it doesn't mean they're all vandals. But from a purely statistical standpoint, a random anonymous editor will have a lower probability of being accurate than a published, qualified scientist will.

Remember though, Wikipedia vandals are unlikely to mess with anything too complex, mostly because 1) not that many people will visit that and see their handiwork and 2) they themselves probably won't know anything about the subject. So you might see pranks on, say Abraham Lincoln, or the Elephant. But would someone really vandalize the Mallaird Browning Reaction? Or cyclin dependent kinases? Or Phacops? Doubtful.

I have yet to see Wikipedia let me down on anything. And the information is MUCH more accessible than any published articles. If someone told me that I could only prepare for my Scio events by reading dry, esoteric, unnecessarily complex scientific papers, I would have quit before I even started. Wikipedia gives information that's a lot easier to digest and not once have I been misled.

And as mentioned above, an event writer will, more often than not, also take information from sources like Wikipedia when writing their events unless they're an expert on the subject, and even at the National level you're not guaranteed an expert event writer. So Wikipedia is more than sufficient for any Science Olympiad event, and if you don't believe so, then cross-reference the things you read.

Anyway, this is the Ecology thread, let's get back on topic.

[paleonaps]

I actually vandalized once at a friends house on the article for the Box Turtle. I changed it's scientific name to have his last name, then showed him, we laughed, and I changed it back.