human nature is exonerated

[erf_]

Those of you who took Social Psych: Remember Kitty Genovese? The woman who was stabbed to death in plain sight of 38 witnesses, none of who lifted a finger to help her? The event that would cost generations of poets, theologians, and social psychologists their faith in humanity

Comments

[zenragethinker]

Stabbed to death*

Details*

[erf_]

Corrected*

[jqsilver]

But what about Rorschach? What will inspire him?

In reality, I remember this guy who came to my health class and told us that the reason most people gave for not helping or calling the cops was that they assumed that the man was her husband. I guess that was crap, too...

[erf_]

Nothing can inspire Rorschach--he has lost too much faith in humanity. The end of his path was the only possible end for him.

Several sources I've seen have witnesses explain that they looked outside and saw what they thought was a "lover's quarrel". I'm not sure that's quite the same...

[judgewargrave]

Wikipedia is reliable only to fools and propagandists.
I have found, empirically, that Wikipedia is almost always right. Sure, only a fool would treat Wikipedia as if it were a primary source, since it isn't; but that's different.

I didn't know that story, but had I known it, I'd have been very hesitant to place such weight in a general opinion of humanity on a single case, since there are obviously plenty of counterexamples.

[erf_]

Then you're not reading enough obscure articles. Popular or controversial articles eventually reach some semblance of truth for the reason that anyone trying to promote one side of an issue will quickly be shot down. Without prior knowledge, however, there's no way to tell if any individual version of a page is an established consensus or still fighting its way to equilibrium. However, good luck trying to find reliable (or even consistent) information on laurices, ancient Roman cuisine (compare Bread), obscure weapons, or Western European martial arts. Or any cult, corporation, or government (including China) in which members have a vested interest in suppressing information. Also, for particularly contentious topics, like abortion, or mathematical topics covered by crackpots, like some forms of number theory, I've noticed that editors tend to value civility over truth. There's so much pressure to get people to stop arguing that supereditors are willing to concede that, well, from some perspectives, maybe 2+2 does equal 5

[erf_]

I have found, empirically, that Wikipedia is almost always right. [citation needed]

[erf_]

I agree about that coverage of the McDonalds lawsuit was terrible (and influenced more than a little by doctor's groups seeking to reduce damages from malpractice laws), but what was misreported about the bees? All the information I've found on the subject (including Wikipedia) screams OMG WTF IS GOING ON. Some environmental groups have been less than truthful about how related the issue is to their agenda, but otherwise I have little reason to believe the brouhaha over the issue is overblown.