|
Post by one50 on Nov 18, 2012 10:04:05 GMT 8
I just want to let you all know of a new publisher in town. "Brev Publishing", started up in 2011 and already has over 4000 titles to the editors name....Germain Adriaan. Right on the cover of all the books it clearly states "High quality content by Wikipedia articles" I ran into these books searching for information on Col. Jones of the 503rd. Mr. Adriaan wrote a book over 300 pages about Col. Jones...not once asking for information or help from the premiere 503rd website (thanks Paul) He also wrote a book on General George Moore, a book on Caballo Island, a book on Harbor defenses of Manila, the list goes on. Thanks to Wikipedia you too can become a publisher and editor; simply copy and paste and put a hefty price tag on it. I would advise anyone to stay clear of these books and the publisher. These books command a heavy price tag, about $75 average for material that is totally free and full of misinformation.
You have been warned Dan
|
|
|
Post by pdh54 on Nov 18, 2012 10:36:22 GMT 8
Thanks for the heads up, Dan
Patty
|
|
|
Post by EXO on Nov 18, 2012 18:33:19 GMT 8
Thanks for the "GARBAGE INCOMING" alert. I tracked them through to VDM Publishing www.vdmpublishinggroup.com and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VDM_Publishing. Hmmm, a German company with a registered office in Mauritius, eh? They have all sorts of titles about things you wouldn't expect would be sufficient to make a book - such as entire books on a single Medal of Honor winner, a book on just the Malinta Tunnel, endless variations. They have 27 subsidiary companies, and their main company issues books under 78 publishing names. They must be busy, given that some editors are noted as being registered against 22,000 different titles. It's almost certain that they rip off our site. We have stuff that just isn't available elsewhere. It's not worth my while even to get a copy. I wouldn't urinate on their products if they were on fire.
|
|
|
Post by darthdract on Nov 18, 2012 23:36:37 GMT 8
OMG! Somebody is compiling Wikipedia articles and selling them? Isnt that illegal? Geez. Wikipedia can be helpful at times but I always make sure I double check their citations first.
|
|
|
Post by EXO on Nov 19, 2012 6:05:11 GMT 8
Agreed. My son used to tell a joke on the accuracy of Wikipedia - "Ah, Wikipedia - Celebrating 300 years of American Independence!" That being said, Wikipedia is a super great help, though not a great reference. Through the years, I've seen factoids* on Wiki for which the authority given is our Corregidor Website, and this makes me uneasy. Whilst I try to ensure that what is published is as accurate as I can make it, I can't and don't guarantee it to "Webster and Oxford" standards. Peer review sure helps though. Ah, that reminds me of why I started this post. It was that the publishing house under discussion has a very low literary repute in academic circles because the books it publishes are entirely without a peer review process. Well, that may be true, I read it on Wikipedia. EXO * In writing this, I had cause to look up the definition of the word "factoid", which in many ways can be quite an interesting word, because it has two quite distinct uses - one as a subset of fact, the other as not being a fact at all. Here's six I found. 1. A brief or trivial item of news or information2. An Assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact. 3. A particularly insignificant or novel fact, in the absence of much relevant context. 4. A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort , and that is then accepted as true. 5. An invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print. 6. Something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised especially to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.
|
|
|
Post by darthdract on Nov 20, 2012 1:55:47 GMT 8
Agreed. My son used to tell a joke on the accuracy of Wikipedia - "Ah, Wikipedia - Celebrating 300 years of American Independence!" That being said, Wikipedia is a super great help, though not a great reference. Through the years , I've seen factoids* on Wiki for which the authority given is our Corregidor Website, and this makes me uneasy. Whilst I try to ensure that what is published is as accurate as I can make it, I can't and don't guarantee it to "Webster and Oxford" standards. Peer review sure helps though. Ah, that reminds me of why I started this post. It was that the publishing house under discussion has a very low literary repute in academic circles because the books it publishes are entirely without a peer review process. Well, that may be true, I read it on Wikipedia. EXO * In writing this, I had cause to look up the definition of the word "factoid", which in many ways can be quite an interesting word, because it has two quite distinct uses - one as a subset of fact, the other as not being a fact at all. Here's six I found. 1. A brief or trivial item of news or information2. An Assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact. 3. A particularly insignificant or novel fact, in the absence of much relevant context. 4. A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort , and that is then accepted as true. 5. An invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print. 6. Something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised especially to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.
That will cause some kind of a paradox later. Circular reasoning A future poster might post some info here that he got from wikipedia. I have a story back when I was in college I made presentation. About early Philippine education so I chose language as a subtopic, specifically pre-hispanic Tagalog. So I stumbled on a Wiki Article about the Laguna copper plate Script I just made a summary of it and read a few citations and I got my self a School report. I got away with it that time. I made further research about the subject and it seems the citations are legit. On the positive side it is a big help introducing me to other people's work like books etc, Like Hector Santos Paul Morrow and Robert Fox. Learning to speak Ancient Tagalog is really a pain. But still I would say Wikipedia is very limited. So most of the time I when I read an article and the info seems iffy and there are limited citations I just take it with a grain of salt.
|
|