Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 December 21

= December 21 =

Serious Question
This is a totally serious question and it's something I've been wondering for awhile, what would Wikipedia's IQ be?

I Found a Cat in my Hat (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the last time it took the test, the result was 42. But that's just a rough estimate. -Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 02:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * IQ tests are unreliable on people, applying one to an abstract concept would be about as useful as applying it to a random number generator. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 02:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Or if we interpret the question as regarding the collective IQ of Wikipedia's users, readers, or some combination thereof, we are left with the impossibility of testing some vast number of people that we don't even have statistics about to get to square one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a redirect page to Intelligence quotient. Duuh. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It would not only be unusuful, it would be impossible. Intelligence (what the IQ evalues) comes from intellegere, which means "to understand". Wikipedia doesn't understand anything because it doesn't have a mind of it's own, it's a concept, an idea. It cannot develop on it's own, don't WE know? -Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 02:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If one assumes that "Wikipedia's" intelligence is the average intelligence of its users, then given a large enough user base, and assuming that its users are rather representatively drawn from the overall population, it should be around 100. If you take Wikipedia to be a form of artificial intelligence itself, then it doesn't have any intelligence; it is a collection of information, it has no processing or understanding skills. As an aside, one might take the Chinese room into consideration. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd bet that the result would probably be the same, or very slightly higher than the result you would have gotten if you had given the same test to the smartest (highest IQ) editor who was participating in the exercise. Typicaly IQ tests will test your logical abilities not your knowledge, so Wikipedia's vast store of knowledge would be almost completely irrelevant. Since the solutions to logic problems are usualy obvious once someone has explained it to you, I would expect that if you somehow asked Wikipedia the questions from an IQ test, the easy ones would be solved by whoever got to them first, The dificult ones by a small group of editors, and the absolute hardest one that could be answered would be by whoever was the 'smartest' among the group of editors participating.
 * Sure, I'm simplifying a bit. I'm assuming that the difficulty of a test problem is a perfectly linear and objective value. But I think that on an (theoretical) ideal IQ test that's how it is supposed to be.
 * On this topic, check out Kasparov versus The World, where everyone on the internet had the opportunity to collaboratively play against Kasparov. What wound up happening is that after move 9 the world started always following the lead of the best player commenting on the match. That is, until the world mysteriously didn't follow her lead on move 51, (possibly because of a security flaw in the voting system.) and made a fatal bad move. APL (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's IQ would be zero. Intelligence Quotient scores are based on the ability to work things out. WP doesn't work anything out, it's just a dumb thing with infinite memory. -- Web H amster  07:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Intelligence is not knowledge. IQ tests work hard to NOT require knowledge in order to get a good score.  They don't ask things like "On what year was Franz Joseph I of Austria, Apostolic King of Hungary born? [ ]1820, [ ]1830, [ ]1715, [ ]1955".  Instead, IQ tests have questions like "Square is to circle as  rectangle is to...[ ]triangle, [ ]square, [ ]ellipse, [ ]circle" (except they do this all in pictures so you don't have to know what a circle, a square or a rectangle is).  Wikipedia has vast stores of knowledge and I suppose could be said to be able to answer the first question (well, it has the KNOWLEDGE to answer it - but it's search capabilities can't answer that question literally).  But it's a dumb computer with no powers of reasoning - there is no chance that it could answer the second question.  So, yeah, it scores a big fat zero.


 * If you are asking "What is the average IQ of Wikipedia editors?" then that's a harder question. It's very likely to be greater than 100 - because people with VERY low IQ's can't understand how to use computers or Wikipedia's interface - so there has to be a slight bias to the high end.  But we don't really know much about the demographics of Wikipedia editors - we have no clue about age distributions or national origin or sex - we have no chance to know people's IQ scores!


 * SteveBaker (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To find the IQ of a group, calculate the harmonic sum of the IQ of its members. That is, you take each person's IQ, take its reciprocal, add them all up, and take the reciprocal again. Sometimes it's said that you take the IQ of the least intelligent member and divide by the number of people in the group, but actually that's just an approximation. --Trovatore (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The post-title MD in the US: Recognition of a degree or of a licence to practices medicine?
In the US, is the title "MD" (as in Dr Joe Bloggs, MD) recognition of someone who has a degree of Doctor of Medicine, or is it recognition of a license to practice medicine? I'm wondering about this - does someone with a non-MD medical degree (e.g, a British or Australian MBBS) who is licensed to practice in the US have the right to use "MD" because they are a doctor of medicine licenced to practice, or is it just a sign of completing a Doctor of Medicine degree? (I'm not logged in because I'm on a shared terminal, but by wikiname is User:Gunny01). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.22.51 (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if there are statutory restrictions on the use of the letters "MD," but I can tell you that American physicians with other types of degrees, such as a DO, do not call themselves "MDs." Instead, they would call themselves "Dr. Joe Smith, DO." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So-called doctors (technically speaking you ain't a doctor unless you have and doctorate) with an MBBS are not licensed to practice medicine in the US, but neither are people with an MD. Both have to take the United States Medical Licensing Examination before they are licensed (and those with non-US medical degrees also have to take the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates Clinical Skills Assessment and ensure their degree was awarded by an institution in the International Medical Education Directory ) If you pass those exams and checks, you can practice in the US irrespective of your type of medical degree. Rockpock  e  t  06:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So the title MD indicates you have a Doctor of Medicine - i.e. it has nothing to do whether you are licensed or not? --121.45.22.51 (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is correct (and similarly true in Canada). Matt Deres (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, to confuse matters further though, it should be noted that most US MD programs incorporate Step 1 and Step 2 of the Medical Licensing Examination. So while an MD does only indicate that you have a Doctor of Medicine, its also true that most people who have an MD already completed the Licensing Examination as part of the program, and thus are licensed to practice under supervision. Typically people with MD's take Step 3 of the exam during their residency, this permits them to practice unsupervised. So, generally speaking, in the US having an MD will usually equate to being partially licensed! Rockpock  e  t  20:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of life?
In the description of the Reference Desk, it said to ask anything. So I'm going to ask something wondered for years.

What is the meaning of life?

71.220.213.101 (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See Meaning of life for an incomplete response. -Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 03:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of a story my old friend told me when he was in guitar class. After finish learning something the teacher asked "any questions" to which one student said "whats the meaning of life?". randmom i know but i couldn't resist telling it...ahh but now to sign this post, which will most likely end up with sinebot signing it anyway after i did. Bones Brigade  03:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BonesBrigade (talk • contribs)
 * That's because your signature has a link to User:Esskater11 (your old username perhaps?) instead of your current user page User:BonesBrigade. —Keenan Pepper 07:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes - specifically, you logged in as User:BonesBrigade but your signature links to User:Esskater11 instead. The SineBot looks at an edit made by User:BonesBrigade and expects to find a link to User:BonesBrigade indicating that the message was signed.  Not finding that link makes it assume that the message wasn't signed - so it goes ahead and adds its own signature.  Fix your signature so it links to BonesBrigade and SineBot will behave itself. SteveBaker (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why does life always have to have a meaning? Does the sky have a meaning? Do baseball bats have meaning? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Two answers: "42" and replication of DNA. That's about it really. -- Web H amster  07:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the question is always worded badly. You can ask "What is the purpose of life?" and get a meaningful answer - or you could ask "What is the meaning of the word 'life'?" - but things and processes don't have meanings.  Nobody asks "What is the meaning of digestion?" or "What is the meaning of driving a car?" - it's a grammatically incorrect sentence - which is the only thing that makes it hard to answer.  SteveBaker (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why I answered both :P -- Web H amster  12:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Wiktionary life has 10 separate meanings; the first one in the list is "the state that precedes death and follows birth or conception". Gandalf61 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If I may put my musings in here, thank you. I have been pondering on the same thing for a few months now because I very often feel lost in civilisation, among people, in the rush of every day. Although on the other hand I can make myself feel at home practically everywhere, having mastered two foreign languages and travelled quite a bit, I feel now more than ever that I don't fit in. I've thought about the meaning of life, and I've come to the conclusion that we are meant to leave something behind for the future and/all for mankind. Something definitely good, that people will benefit from one way or the other. All people. Because, well, replication of DNA leads inevitably to death anyway, and as for 42, although Japan had recently almost confirmed UFO's and there's a good deal of certainty that They're somewhere out there, we aren't really all that capable of truly reaching out to the stars. So, do something for people, so that they will remember you and speak your name for centuries to come. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My favorite definition of life is #9 on Wiktionary: "A term of imprisonment of a convict until his or her death." Oh, and 42 isn't the meaning of life; it's the answer to life, the universe, and everything. --Masamage ♫ 18:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you believe Arthur Schopenhauer life has no meaning. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite what our article is (incorrectly) called, what DNA wrote about was "The answer to the Ultimate Question of life, the universe and everything". Answers don't exist without questions (not even in Jeopardy); they are like two sides of the same coin, although the analogy fails because it's like a single obverse (a question) with at least the possibility of multiple reverses (many possible answers).  But you get my drift, I'm sure.  "The answer to life ..." is as meaningless as "the meaning of life".   The answer to the appropriately worded question is still 42, though, last time I checked.--  JackofOz (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I a looking for a web page where the edges of knowledge can be discussed and expanded.
Dear Sir or Maam,

I am looking for a web page where the edges of knowledge can be discussed and expanded. It seems to me that the real power of a user-editable knowledge-sharing web page is for practical problem-solving. However, Wikipedia has a NOR (No Original Research) policy which is frustrating to me. What is the proper place, what is the proper forum for the organized yet informal sharing of ideas for the common good? Such discussions could consider medical, scientific, industrial, business, or other matters.

For example, if your child had a certain disease and the doctors could do nothing, then you would have somewhere to turn. You could go to the medical section, look at a list of diseases or topics, pick the one your child has, and enter into a discussion with other people around the world who have concerns like yours. Perhaps they too have a child with the same disease. Maybe they know something you don't which is not in print. (Have you ever seen the movie Eulie's Gold? [How to spell Eulie?])

Or, perhaps you have a young, gifted mind who wants to reduce global warming by designing a more efficient solar panel. He could join a discussion on this topic in the science section.

In my opinion, such a website (or added function within Wikipedia) would have the potential for great good. If such a website already exists, then I would like to know how to find it. If it does not exist, then I would like to ask the people at Wikipedia to create it.

Greetings from tom (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is what you are looking for: http://wikidiscovery.org/wikiresearch/index.php?title=Main_Page. - Dammit (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That Wiki has a grand total of six pages on it! It's hardly ready for prime-time usage. SteveBaker (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that un-trained, un-methodological, and un-organized pursuit of new knowledge rarely leads to much good for all of the effort that is expended. That is why in most cases resources are concentrated in systems of knowledge production that have historically been extremely powerful—the institutions of science and research—rather than on projects like the one you have described. But I'm not trying to be discouraging; I'd just be surprised if for the amount of time and effort (which are valuable resources, in my book) put into such a thing that there would really be much if any usable payoff. In some arenas—medical issues—I could imagine all sorts of negative things as a possible side-effect as well, if things were inexpertly diagnosed or understood (which is why we don't give medical advice on this desk). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how Ulee's Gold pertains to this topic. I think you're probably thinking of Lorenzo's Oil, which does pertain to this topic.  MrRedact (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The way the original poster described this idea sounds like it would be a superstition mill of the highest order. "Oh, your sick child owns a rabbit? So does mine! I think we're onto something here!".
 * Such a web site would need some sort of verifiability standards, like a real scientific journal. It may seem undemocratic, but treating Darwinism and Alex Chiu's New Darwinism as though they were equal is a recipe for disaster. One is a real scientific theory that makes real predictions that can later be confirmed by observation or experimentation, and the other is some vague nonsense about static electricity.
 * When you talk about "informal" scientific research, I'm guessing that what you really mean is "amateur" scientific research, which frankly makes it worrying that your first example is about medicine. I'm sure there are plenty of forums on the internet where people pass the time by idly speculating on what homeopathic placebo might cure some incurable disease, but a website designed specifically to give this practice some sort of legitimacy sounds like it'd be putting itself in a tricky legal situation, to say nothing of its moral situation.
 * If such a site overcame these problems and became popular, vandalism would also be a huge problem, unless contributers could be proven reliable before being allowed to contribute. APL (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Evangelical christiandom
Having seen the afore mentioned phenomenon spread across Southern Africa in the late 90's. It is also apparently commonplace in the USA. Personally I feel it is not all for the best as many of those I knew held very right wing zenephobic view, but my personal feelings aside, is there some person or organization that it running this, or organizing it. Beacuse, much like a cult they seem to be recruiting young teenagers mostly. So 1. who is organizing it internationally, and 2. there was a movie released a few years ago about this, can any one tell me what it was called. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there is no organization "running" the Evangelical movement. This movement began in the 18th-19th centuries and continues to this day. That alone should strongly suggest that there isn't a single organization running the movement. Our article on Evangelicalism should also suggest that as true given the diverse denominations that can be grouped within the term. As to whether they are a cult because they recruit young teenagers mostly, I have to disagree. Yes, there is a large movement to attract teenagers, but it isn't as though they start recruiting at that age. Teenagers often rebel against their parents and therefore the movement (broadly speaking, of course, as there is no single one organization) may focus extra effort on that group to ensure they do not stray. To answer (1) each mainline denomination would have their own proselytizing group, and (2) are you thinking of the Left Behind series, or Jesus_Camp, or Saved!?--droptone (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Saved, thats the one. Is there any organization that is trying to counter this movement, besides the obvious Church of Satan and the like. But seriously, an organization that can be taken seriously.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't think the Church of Satan was a reaction to Evangelical Christianity, but more a reaction to Christianity in general (especially since they were founded in the mid-late 60s). But regardless, there are plenty of churches who are contrary to many of the principles Evangelicals would claim, most notably Unitarian Universalism. I'm sure the Catholic Church opposes many of the fundamentals of the Evangelical movement, especially biblical literalism. I don't think you will find a (somewhat) mainline Christian denomination that is openly antagonistic to the Evangelical movement, but plenty would be very opposed to the claims of Evangelicals. Also worth checking out is Unitarianism.--droptone (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are asking about a Christian reaction to hardline Evangelicalism, sadly there isn't. The problem is that the liberal wing of the church which tends to embrace pluralism is not very good at being organised and acting in concert. There are quite a few people in the church I belong to who are survivors from extreme evangelical churches. It can be a very battering experience. Another reaction to extreme evangelicals (apart from Satanism!) would be extreme secularism, and they do get themselves organised better. SaundersW (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that Evangelicals are far from a monolithic movement and there are many Evangelical leaders who are speaking out against some of the extremes of Evangelicalism themselves, particularly the relatively recent close ties between Evangelicalism and the Republican Party. See, for example, and . Donald Hosek (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are organizations that are trying to counter evangelicalism. The National Center for Science Education is an organization that specifically works to counter Christian fundamentalists and does not take a position on religion otherwise. Also see Category:Atheism organizations for a different approach. I would disagree that the Church of Satan is particularly interested in countering Evangelicalism specifically. As for why evangelicals try to recruit teenagers, this is a conscious strategy as I understand it. Some people call it Generation Joshua (referring to the Biblical general). According to Michelle Goldberg’s book Kingdom Coming this is strategic attempt to raise “holy warriors” (intended symbolically I hope). As Levi says in Jesus Camp “We're being trained to be God's army.” Of course I may just be showing my atheistic bias. . . Hope that helps, --S.dedalus (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Verizon BlackBerry Pearl 8130
I would like to use another program other than VZ Navigator, How do you use the built-in GPS?--Dlo2012 (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

7 Wonders
(removed double posting of question asked also on the Humanities desk and which has received responses there.) Edison (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

1920's jazz
Hiya, I am trying to find the chord to Thats you baby by Annette Hanshaw, for guitar. I would also be interested in any of her other songs. Aswell as chords to any Ruth Etting music. I have searched the web reletalessly and would be eternally greatful if some one could tell me where to find guitar chords to any music by eith of these women thanks people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I regret to say that we can't provide links to websites that infringe the copyrights of composers and other artists. › mys id (☎∆) 19:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If it is from the 1920s, it is very possibly not copyrighted anymore. Anyway we provide all sorts of links to YouTube all over the site without caring much about copyright status. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you've already searched the web, the odds are they aren't to be had on the web. You'd probably better be served going to a music store which might be able to direct you to a book of jazz songs which could contain the artists you mentioned. In my experience most online guitar chords are primarily for more modern songs, but offline you can find a lot of older stuff. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)--24.147.86.187 (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

White spots in our nails
Why do white spots appear in our nails? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopi kve (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is called Leukonychia, and there are many reasons for them to appear, most commonly, hurting your finger right at the nail's base or nail biting. -Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 16:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But if you also have suffer from hair loss and/or a slow immune system, then the white spots are probably caused by a zinc deficiency instead. --David Broadfoot (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Are edamame pods edible?
Boy howdy. Our article for edamame states that generally, they are steamed and removed from the pod, then consumed. Kicking around looking for advice on the subject-line, I've seen some reference to eating the pod whole (I enjoy this, it's very fibrous) and some scare quotes from my sister's girlfriend stating that the pods are 'toxic, and should not be eaten...(!)' maybe akin to apple seed folklore. I appreciate the light you can shed on this subject. Love, 70.181.41.1 (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Never heard of such a thing. Being Chinese-American, I've seen plenty of people eat the pod whole, though I don't like it myself. It's probably an urban legend.  bibliomaniac 1  5  21:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Be sure to wash them thoroughly if you want to eat them though, their hairy nature can retain quite a bit of pesticide. --antilivedT 00:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(OP) Her story did have a smack of old wives tale about it. Thanks very much to you both. 70.181.41.1 (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Mars to be hit by Asteroid
I have just seen on the news, incl. FOX News and CNN that Mars is or will be hit by a asteroid tonight or tomorrow night. '''Is there any further info. on this ? Calculations, so far, show that Mars will be hit in odds of 1 in 400, a good chance exists that the asteroid may be deflected enough that it may hit US' instead''. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just googled this matter: Mars will be hit (?) in two weeks from now. Can someone place a current event template on the Mars article, the asteroid article ? 65.163.112.128 (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just read the Mars article. The odds are 1 in 75 of it hitting this planet. I'm still trying to find more info on this matter.65.163.112.128 (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Er actually it would hit on January 30, not two weeks. And no, there is no chance that the earth will be hit by this- even if it was, it's not like it would be a catastrophe. It's only 160 feet across. 70.162.25.53 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Au contraire, mon frere. The energy released by the object has been said to be comparable to the Tunguska event which was in turn said to have the explosive magnitude 10 to 20 megaton nuclear bomb. Certainly enough to get your attention even if you were many miles away, or to devastate a large city. But the odds are 74 out of 75 that it will miss Mars, which is pretty good. People do lots of things where their odds of survival are 98.7%. Edison (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This website is a fun place to go to calculate asteroid and comet impacts on Earth http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/ - sadly, it fails for Mars because the gravitation and atmosphere models are all wrong. But if you want to play with "what if" experiments to find out what this thing would to do Earth, that's a great resource. SteveBaker (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * User:70.162.25.53 is right: an 160 foot diameter asteroid hitting the earth would not even from a crater. Only small pieces would make it through the atmosphere. --David Broadfoot (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hydrogen bombs don't always create craters either. Airbursts of presumably meteoric origin can be quite effective, per Tunguska Edison (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Non TV watcher needs inside scoop on pop-cultural reference
The TV program The Office has a reference to a character who doesn't have family pictures up in his/her cubicle so the issue has something to do with them taking pictures from other people's cubicles. Do you know anything about this or is there some similar such reference in this TV show? Fill me in as I am pop-culture illiterate. Thanks. NoClutter (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think they are making any sort of external reference there, but the idea of someone doing that is damn funny. The characters on that show represent, to me at any rate, the different types of people that you will find working in the American office environment. I personally can think of a real life person for each of those roles though fortunately I didn't work with them all at the same time. So don't worry about why they make that joke, just laugh at the absudity of it. 161.222.160.8 (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)