Desk Top Underwriters equal to.

[Patti Jury]

Wikipedia!!!!

I recently read an article that low test scores in our schools can be somewhat attributed to the craze to search for "factual" answers on Wikipedia.

So I had these absolutely unbearable UW conditions coming across my desk to include but not limited to....

1) 2 new current comps required within .5 miles with similar:

2) 6/21/2008 - site, age, GLA, room count. Comps are dated in a declining market. New comps to be within four months. Please also comment on the relevance of 447 Pyrite Terrace as a comparable. Value appears high.

3) Appraiser to clearly state if subject property is in a PUD or not in a PUD. The appraiser states that the area is zoned for PUDs and answers a question in the PUD section on
page 3, however does not mark it as a PUD on page 1.

So since these conditions have all been addressed in the original report..except for the declining market thing...they actually made that up. Never stated in the report that subject is located in a decling market. Did Desktop UW just make that up too?
Also can't comment on 447 Pyrite Terrace because I never included that comp in the report.

So I ponder to myself now...as I think about this....

Did the Founders of Wikipedia also write the software program for Desktop Underwriting?

 

[c w d]

Did the Founders of Wikipedia also write the software program for Desktop Underwriting?

I'm a fan of Wikipedia. So, I'll step up in support of it. It's a great starting point to learn about a particular topic. What one must realize, however, is it is a netizen authored information source. As such it is subject to whimsical and erroneous edits by anyone. From one day to the next information could be more or less misleading. I have not found it to be inaccurate for the topics I have researched using it. And, I do not use it as my only information source when I "need" to know something.

One must be cognizant of motivated authors on Wikipedia. Corporations are known to change information to suit their needs or purely for propaganda purposes. I would expect that to be true for any entity that has a vested interest in a particular topic or topics. But then, we must be cognizant of that for any information source these days. Wikipedia just happens to be more dynamic. A friend of mine told me that in the highschool history books his daughter is reading that it is stated the reason we went into Iraq was because of WMD's. Obviously a factually inaccurate book that one would expect to have more vetting than Wikipedia.

 

[Patti Jury]

Oh...I don't know cwd..

Not real sure how I feel about it..but when you have Court Judges that cite Wikipedia as a "Decision" resource based on information found on Wikipedia...only to have that decision overturned....

I..iiiiii kind of have a problem with that. Wikipedia can be a good resource but I find it no more factual or factual than this website.

It is an opinion based resource that can be changed at a drop of a hat depending on the mood of the poster.

 

[Mike Boyd]

What is unreasonable about the underwriters request? Yes, it is irritating when asked for 2 or more additional comps, but that has become the norm. In reference to the property they want you to comment on, obvisously it is a sale or listing that THEY think should have been considered. So, check it out and either put it in a grid or debunk it with reasons.

 

[c w d]

Oh...I don't know cwd..

Not real sure how I feel about it..but when you have Court Judges that cite Wikipedia as a "Decision" resource based on information found on Wikipedia...only to have that decision overturned....

I..iiiiii kind of have a problem with that. Wikipedia can be a good resource but I find it no more factual or factual than this website.

It is an opinion based resource that can be changed at a drop of a hat depending on the mood of the poster.

At the mood of "a" poster. Anyone can edit it. Information based solely on opinion doesn't usually last long on Wikipedia for popular topics. I think it's a great concept. Lets face the facts. Any one book is going to have a certain number of errors. Through newer editions the information is corrected and updated. But, those older editions still float around. And any one book is going to have a certain amount of bias. Wikipedia is a bit more dynamic. It is subject to error and bias as any other media. Instead of a set of authors and editors who may tend to have the same bias or the same erroneous information Wikipedia has the added advantage of having all biases and all known information available to it almost instantaneously. I think over time as Wikipedia improves upon itself overcoming some of these problems we'll see it actually become a more respectable and reliable information source.

If a Judge wants to base his opinion off of Wikipedia that's his judgment. See that as an opportunity if he rules against you. If he rules for you go ahead and appeal the decision right then and there *chuckle*.

 

[Patti Jury]

Well Gee Mike...I don't know...call me crazy!

What IS unreasonable about a request to comment on a comp that was NEVER included in your report. Do you often get a request to comment on 447 Pyrite when you actually used 312 Pyrite? I think that would be an "unreasonable request."

Like I told the UW...

"What part of 312 did YOU NOT understand?"

"Why would I have to explain 447?"

A 3 looks like this "3", a 1 looks like this "1", and a 2 looks like this "2"

A 4 looks like this "4", and another 4 looks like this "4", and a 7 looks like this "7".

Gee I see nothing unreasonable about that!

 

[c w d]

Patti, ya know...ya could write an entry about UW's on Wikipedia and make them sound crazy which wouldn't be hard.