Error in the TTA narration?

[powlessfamily4]

And until you can claim that Wiki is always right, all the time, I will stand by my statement.

(No disservice meant to their editors.)

I agree, I can tell you that I have 2 kids in 2 different colleges and Wiki is not allowed to be used as a source at for research at either one. The reason is that not all information on Wiki is verified and therefore the content is open to debate. If you fo to the Wikipedia "about" page you will find this:

"Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles (except in certain cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism). Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or with their real identity, if they choose"


Now that does make me feel comfortable about their detailed content. :drevil:

 

[fyn]

I agree, I can tell you that I have 2 kids in 2 different colleges and Wiki is not allowed to be used as a source at for research at either one. The reason is that not all information on Wiki is verified and therefore the content is open to debate. If you fo to the Wikipedia "about" page you will find this:

"Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles (except in certain cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism). Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or with their real identity, if they choose"


Now that does make me feel comfortable about their detailed content. :drevil:

*Sigh*

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html


I hate how inaccurate the Encyclopedia Britannica is.

 

[MissM]

Hey Miss M, nobody will acknowledge your informative post, so allow me to give you some computer "props".

Aw, well thanks! *takes a bow* :lol:

Not only that but the answer is in the preshow announcement as well.

Watch at :54 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKz6qdexetY
"although our Carousel family has experienced some changes over the years..."

Awesome call as well!! :sohappy:

 

[captainkidd]

The entire new TTA spiel is an error. :lol:

:lol:

 

[unkadug]

*Sigh*

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html


I hate how inaccurate the Encyclopedia Britannica is.

Double *Sigh*....

To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).

That's always an appropriate response when researching any fact.

FYN...You must have some sort of a financial stake in the Wiki franchise to be so vehemently defending a site that most institutions of higher education readily dismiss. :shrug:

Good luck with that battle. :wave:

 

[Lord Pheonix]

ok, TECHNICALLY, both explainations are right.

it is the same family. however each scene is of that family as if they were from that perticular timeframe. the only charector that seems to have a vaque memory or idea that he's jumping through time is the father, although he never comes out and says it explicitly.

 

[Kamikaze]

And until you can claim that Wiki is always right, all the time, I will stand by my statement.

(No disservice meant to their editors.)

You must have missed the articles that compare wikipedia and a 'real' encyclopedia, and finds more errors in a given article in that 'real' encyclopedia.

 

[Ralphlaw]

I've ranted before about the pure unadulterated mediocrity of the new TTA narration. None of the charm remains. It's either a salespitch for the gift shops or a bland recitation of the attraction. Although I don't have it quoted, the spiel for Space Mountain I believe is something like:

"For a trip that's out of this world, take a ride on Space Mountain."

Come on folks, spice it up. How about:

"Tomorrowland's link to the galaxy is found in Space Mountain, where Earthlings, Martians, and other Tomorrowland travelers can board a space module to any galactic destination."

Or for a Tommorowland gift shop, how about:

"For the galactic cadet in your family, stop at Mickey's Star Traders for the latest in laser blasters, dematerializers, and space helmets which are able to fit any number of heads. Our Astro apparel department has the latest in galactic fashion, no matter how many arms or tentacles you have."

These aren't great, obviously, but the lame voice that they're using, and the bland messages, are a crime compared to the old one. Nobody, and I literally mean nobody, could make a convincing argument that the current version is an improvement. A giant step back if ever there was one.

 

[Phonedave]

ok, TECHNICALLY, both explainations are right.

it is the same family. however each scene is of that family as if they were from that perticular timeframe. the only charector that seems to have a vaque memory or idea that he's jumping through time is the father, although he never comes out and says it explicitly.

Thechnicaly the use of the word "family" makes it as vague as hell.

Is it family, as in the same mother, father, dog, and kids (minus the daughter who clearly married Chuck Cunningham from Happy Days, and they both are still living upstairs in the Cunninghamn household)

Is it family in the extended family sense, showing the same EXTENDED family over the ages.

Is it family in the general discriptive sense of a group of items. Family of animitronics leans in this directon.

I still stand by the assertation that none of the descriptions are definitive.


-dave

 

[ABigBrassBand]

Double *Sigh*....



That's always an appropriate response when researching any fact.

FYN...You must have some sort of a financial stake in the Wiki franchise to be so vehemently defending a site that most institutions of higher education readily dismiss. :shrug:

Good luck with that battle. :wave:

Higher education institutions don't use it for their paranoid reasons of information being wrong, and I respect that. However, the reality is that most of the information on Wikipedia is accurate.

 

[Ralphlaw]

Higher education institutions don't use it for their paranoid reasons of information being wrong, and I respect that. However, the reality is that most of the information on Wikipedia is accurate.

True, plus the internet in general, and wikipedia and google in particular, are making some skills of educators obsolete. In the coming years, some duties of educational institutions and libraries will begin to disappear. The world of information and experiences is at your fingertips, and old time educators have a hard time with it. But here are their legitimate concerns:

1. Using wikipedia as a source is impossible to verify because it changes.
2. Technically, any student could slap something on wikipedia, and suddenly it would be considered a "fact".
3. Wikipedia and other internet resources are like cliff notes times ten. No longer do you have to read Oliver Twist, just zip through a few condensed versions on the net, and you could pass most quizzes and tests. This is frightening to most teachers.
4. Although the vast majority of information on Wikipedia is accurate, a tiny percentage is indeed wrong, so educators throw out the entire baby of accurate information with the small amount of inaccurate bathwater. It's handy for them to do this, plus it's consistent with their worries as expressed above. Also, imagine reading a few dozen research papers which, amazingly, all contain the exact same piece of inaccurate information.
5. Wikipedia entries are often not well prioritized. Look up something near and dear to you on wikipedia, and you'll often find trivial details being given priority, with bigger issues being slighted or not mentioned at all. Again, imagine reading a few dozen research papers on Roy Disney that fail to mention that he once had tuberculosis, or mention ad nauseum that his tuberculosis colored his entire life. Neither version would appear to be accurate. A fully edited encyclopedia will have a better chance of having proper prioritizing.
6. Wikipedia, and classic encyclopedias, lack depth. Educators may be afraid that only shallow understanding will result from a society that constantly clicks on wikipedia for all their answers. Use wikipedia to look up Roy Disney sr., and you'll barely scratch the surface of this amazing man conpared to what you'll learn from a full biography. Good educators want you to find far more depth than this.

With all that being said, I love wikipedia, and I jump on it at least a hundred times a month. So it goes.

Now, just google TTA narration, and I guarantee you that no respectable source will opine that the new narration has any value whatsoever. So there.

 

[unkadug]

You must have missed the articles that compare wikipedia and a 'real' encyclopedia, and finds more errors in a given article in that 'real' encyclopedia.

And those articles would be from .....Wikipedia. :lol:


Who says that any research should be done from an encyclopedia? NOBODY.


Please read Ralphlaw's explanation above.

 

[fyn]

And those articles would be from .....Wikipedia. :lol:


Who says that any research should be done from an encyclopedia? NOBODY.


Please read Ralphlaw's explanation above.

Just to be clear, the study was done by the science journal Nature.

 

[unkadug]

Just to be clear, the study was done by the science journal Nature.

Just to be clear....research shouldn't be done from an encyclopedia.

 

[juniorthomas]

I'm fine with it. I get that its technically one family, but either way I still enjoy the ride.

 

[allgar]

Just to be clear....research shouldn't be done from an encyclopedia.

Enjoy your hours of first person research then...

You are absolutely wrong that Encyclopedias shouldn't be used for research. They are a primary tool for high level fact gathering. They provide a basis for initial understanding and when looking for a simple answer they are definitive and as "absolute" as any other source. They are readily accepted as annotations within research papers.

Should research stop at encyclopedias if you're looking to write a thesis, essay, scholarly paper of any kind? No. It's not what they are intended for either. But to discount them as a research source altogether is ridiculous and makes you look uninformed.

As for Wikipedia, it is a viable source of information. It has proven to be as accurate and moreso in some cases than regular traditional Encyclopedias. No Wikipedia cannot be cited in research because of its open nature which means it can change quickly and until the facts are checked by the users, and even occasionally after, it can be wrong. I agree it shouldn't be seen as definitive, but I have personally found it to be extremely accurate. In this earlier case... it was 100% accurate and it was discounted because it was not a "reliable" source. I say step into the 2000's and accept that this new fangled source of information can and usually is accurate. Embrace it, contribute to it, make it better, share all of that first person research you'll be doing. I for one appreciate learning from other's knowledge, it's the primary reason I'm on these boards.

 

[allgar]

BTW - I agree that it's one family. The Miss M quote from Disney is the proof, but beyond that I just believe that it is one family. Even if you want to take the line that they are not the same "people" one scene to the next there is little doubt that they are related. (and a wicked canny resemblance to eachother)

My personal feeling is that the attraction shows the same family in different eras, but if imagining them as different generations of the same family gets you over the mind bend that works too.

No doubt it's not four different families though. Don't know about you, but I still consider my grandparents, and great grandparents as part of my family. I'd even consider a great Uncle Orville a part of the family.

 

[ryno1982]

It is one family. If you can't figure that out, then you don't understand the point of the attraction. That and the obvious evidence- they all look and sound alike and have the same name in each scene. Whoever wrote the TTA script should be fired.

 

[Ralphlaw]

Whoever wrote the TTA script should be fired.

Here here!

 

[unkadug]

Enjoy your hours of first person research then...

You are absolutely wrong that Encyclopedias shouldn't be used for research. They are a primary tool for high level fact gathering. They provide a basis for initial understanding and when looking for a simple answer they are definitive and as "absolute" as any other source. They are readily accepted as annotations within research papers.

Should research stop at encyclopedias if you're looking to write a thesis, essay, scholarly paper of any kind? No. It's not what they are intended for either. But to discount them as a research source altogether is ridiculous and makes you look uninformed.

As for Wikipedia, it is a viable source of information. It has proven to be as accurate and moreso in some cases than regular traditional Encyclopedias. No Wikipedia cannot be cited in research because of its open nature which means it can change quickly and until the facts are checked by the users, and even occasionally after, it can be wrong. I agree it shouldn't be seen as definitive, but I have personally found it to be extremely accurate. In this earlier case... it was 100% accurate and it was discounted because it was not a "reliable" source. I say step into the 2000's and accept that this new fangled source of information can and usually is accurate. Embrace it, contribute to it, make it better, share all of that first person research you'll be doing. I for one appreciate learning from other's knowledge, it's the primary reason I'm on these boards.

At least you and few others here understand what research is. I also believe another reason most educators dismiss Wiki is to teach their students the meaning of real research.

And it's not Wikipedia.

And now...I will step off my soapbox. :wave: