Petshrimp.com Discussion Forum

I just picked up a copy of AWAVE Magazine for March. It's a bimonthly aquarium magazine here in Japan with 250 pages of information. The March issue has a 50 page article called Keeping & Breeding Guide Of Red Bee Shrimp and Cherry Shrimp.

It goes into great detail on all aspects of the shrimp from keeping them to raising them for commercial sale, grading, appropriate tankmates and other topics to do with these shrimp.

There are lots of pictures, diagrams and charts covering all aspects.

In all there's too much information for me to comfortably translate in the article.

edinjapan wrote:I just picked up a copy of AWAVE Magazine for March. It's a bimonthly aquarium magazine here in Japan with 250 pages of information. The March issue has a 50 page article called Keeping & Breeding Guide Of Red Bee Shrimp and Cherry Shrimp.

It goes into great detail on all aspects of the shrimp from keeping them to raising them for commercial sale, grading, appropriate tankmates and other topics to do with these shrimp.

There are lots of pictures, diagrams and charts covering all aspects.

In all there's too much information for me to comfortably translate in the article.

hmmm
it is not of course in english

edinjapan wrote: I could. First look at the links I provided and tell me what interests you in a PM. If we start wheeling and dealing in public the Big Boss will send some Yaks after you.

Thanks for your consideration.

DatDamWuf wrote:Mustafa, I hope you or someone else as knowledgeable will correct the wikipedia info! the folks that host it know things are sometimes put there that are wrong and are good about allowing corrections. I'm sure none of them have a clue about shrimp!

Not's not exactly true, because the wikipedia's articles are contributed and edited by people knowledgeable in their field. I'm sure most of them does have a clue.

shrimping wrote: Not's not exactly true, because the wikipedia's articles are contributed and edited by people knowledgeable in their field. I'm sure most of them does have a clue.

You obviously have no idea how Wikipedia works. Anybody (not just "people knowleadgeable in their fields") can edit information on Wikipedia. It's never a good idea to just assume things are correct. Hence saying "I'm sure" is not a good idea if you are really not sure at all.

Mustafa wrote:

shrimping wrote: Not's not exactly true, because the wikipedia's articles are contributed and edited by people knowledgeable in their field. I'm sure most of them does have a clue.

You obviously have no idea how Wikipedia works. Anybody (not just "people knowleadgeable in their fields") can edit information on Wikipedia. It's never a good idea to just assume things are correct. Hence saying "I'm sure" is not a good idea if you are really not sure at all.

It is true that anybody can put contribute information on wikipedia, but any wrong info that gets in gets edited back out. Just find any page on wikipedia on any topic and put in something wrong and see if it edited out, you'll be surprised how fast it will be!

Like I said, I am sure most of them that put the information there that we can see(ie not edited out) does have a clue. If I am not sure at all then I wouldn't be saying I'm sure, would I?

shrimping wrote:It is true that anybody can put contribute information on wikipedia, but any wrong info that gets in gets edited back out. Just find any page on wikipedia on any topic and put in something wrong and see if it edited out, you'll be surprised how fast it will be!

Yes, that's probably true with subjects that are clear cut. With subjects that are not so clear cut, I can imagine that there can be "editing wars" where people from several opinion camps keep editing out the entries of the others. In the end nobody knows what's right and what's wrong.

Like I said, I am sure most of them that put the information there that we can see(ie not edited out) does have a clue.

Not necessarily. I'll give you an example. If I write "Caridina japonica larvae need saltwater to survive" and someone else keeps editing that out and says: "Caridina japonica larvae can reach adulthood in full freshwater" I might correct that a few times. But if the other person or persons keep editing this information out constantly, then I might just get sick of of playing such games and decide to give up. If there are no other "experts" around to correct that information (and trust me when I say that there very few "experts" in the shrimp hobby right now), then the wrong information will stay. And in this case the person who wrote it was a moron, not an expert.

The same would, of course, not be true with common topics like tennis, or chess, or physics, as there are a lot more people knowledgeable about these issues.

If I am not sure at all then I wouldn't be saying I'm sure, would I?

I believe you that you are sure. You're absolutely right, if you did not think you are sure then you would not say that you are sure. However, as I showed you in my example above, maybe it's not a good thing to be all that sure about this particular topic, as not all experts in all fields decide to spend their time writing articles and correcting others on wikipedia.