OK, best moving image Scifi/fantasy - no repeats any number you want.

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

There are things I'd like to see made into a movie, except that I'm afraid it'd be impossible to do it well. Rendezvous With Rama, for example. Not bc of the effects, I think current technology could handle that credibly. But bc I don't know how you could properly tell the story in a 2 hr movie.

Dune comes to mind. Great story. Putting it on the big screen didn't work so well. Effects can be handled but how do you deliver a complex story in a time frame that doesn't numb your azz into oblivion & bore you?

They managed it with Lord of the Rings, which I thought would be impossible --- it takes more than 2 hours, perhaps more than one movie

 

[WarmWaterDiver]

Another good one from the animated set - "Fire and Ice"

 

[Walter]

Wikipedia says

If you start with that, I don't need to know any more. Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for anything. What they say may or may not be correct. The only way to know is to compare what they say to a legitimate resource.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

If you start with that, I don't need to know any more. Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for anything. What they say may or may not be correct. The only way to know is to compare what they say to a legitimate resource.

I believe there was a legitimate source recently (either Science or Nature magazine) that published an analysis showing that Wikipedia contained fewer errors than Encyclopedia Britannica Online. One can say that there is no ONE legitimate source for anything, it seems...

 

[Wayward Son]

The problem with Wik is that anyone can make entries. That being the case I have a hard time trusting anything that comes from it, since I have no idea who put it there nor how accurate it is.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

I double checked --- it was Nature, and the analysis showed that Britannica had slightly fewer errors, but not significantly so, i.e., Wikipedia and Britannica were, within statistical error, the same in terms of accuracy. Apparently, authors chose a large swath of random articles and assigned them to a panel of experts for tabulation of errors. Both Wikipedia and Britannica did well, with relatively few errors. However, neither was 100% accurate, again making the point that no single source can be trusted completely. Nor discounted entirely.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

The problem with Wik is that anyone can make entries. That being the case I have a hard time trusting anything that comes from it, since I have no idea who put it there nor how accurate it is.

When we read a magazine article, or an encyclopedia entry, do we know who wrote it, or what their credentials are? We "trust" that the editors of those organizations only use qualified experts, but do we know for sure who they are?

From first hand knowledge, I can tell you that many articles and book chapters in scholarly works bearing prominent 'experts' as authors were, in fact, ghost written by medical students or trainees with little oversight. The expert gets the request and foists it on a flunky to do (and I'm talking chapters in famous textbooks). Of course, the expert stll gets the credit on his or her CV!

To be accurate, or trustworthy, facts must be corroborated by multiple sources. No single source can be trusted.

 

[Wayward Son]

No, I don't completely trust any of them. I don't really trust most people, period. But with Wik, it's even more so. There is no effort at screening that I'm aware of. Anyone, anywhere in the world, can put what ever they want in it. All it takes is access to the net.

 

[under water]

No, I don't completely trust any of them. I don't really trust most people, period. But with Wik, it's even more so. There is no effort at screening that I'm aware of. Anyone, anywhere in the world, can put what ever they want in it. All it takes is access to the net.

That is exactly the point .. Everyone can correct it. usually, only people with knowledge however, bother to correct it., Colbert aside. The wiki model is still in it's infancy, but it looks to be a model that will accerate a lot of processes towards starndardization and knowledge sharing.
I agree that some thing demand rigo(u)r that wikis do not have, however, who really is the authority on how the term 'sixties' is interpreted other than all of us. Wikipedia would be as good a reflection of that as any, because it distills opinion in a way that doesn't get into the silly arguments we have here. (OK it does sometimes.)
If Walter would ask his daughter what she meant we can at least answer that question and from someone who wasn't there.
Did she mean "something done between 01/01/60 and 12/31/69" or "something that was from that general era".

Did anyone mention "The Time Machine" yet. That really affected me when I saw it 'back in the sixties'

 

[Walter]

That is exactly the point .. Everyone can correct it.

Anyone can also screw it up.