Wikipedia is run by fools

[Liszt]

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

"List anonymous wikipedia edits from interesting organizations"

Read first


http://www.mister-info.com/?cmd=disp...45&format=html

"US Dept of Justice IP address blocked after 'vandalism' edits to Wikipedia"

and this is what happens when idiots learn to type

Isn't time we stopped trusting twats like this?

Wikipedia is bad in so many ways that there is no word to describe it any more. Not one that is not blocked by the censors, anyway.

ETA - some people still consider wikipedia to be "ok" but it is not. As any fule no that it is not the case.

[Loss Leader]

"US Dept of Justice IP address blocked after 'vandalism' edits to Wikipedia"

and this is what happens when idiots learn to type

Isn't time we stopped trusting twats like this?

Wikipedia is bad in so many ways that there is no word to describe it any more. Not one that is not blocked by the censors, anyway.

ETA - some people still consider wikipedia to be "ok" but it is not. As any fule no that it is not the case.


I'd just like to go on record as saying that I don't understand this thread. I can't even figure out what information in the links I'm supposed to be looking at.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'd just like to go on record as saying that I don't understand this thread. I can't even figure out what information in the links I'm supposed to be looking at.


I don't get this thread either, but I think Liszt's second link is supposed to be this one: http://www.mister-info.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=10545&format=html

[fullflavormenthol]

Well I am not going to go into a whole conspiracy thing, but wikipedia is crap. Not to look down on those who try to make it good, but I look down on it. I have dealt with wrong information and more than enough woo on wikipedia to make me not trust it.

[gumboot]

It really depends what you're looking at. Some articles are well written and thoroughly sourced. They provide an excellent starting place to get familiar with a topic and then move out and look into the various linked sources.

I would not be inclined to use Wikipedia for a controversial topic, however.

[robinson]

It really depends what you're looking at. Some articles are well written and thoroughly sourced. They provide an excellent starting place to get familiar with a topic and then move out and look into the various linked sources.

I would not be inclined to use Wikipedia for a controversial topic, however.

Reading the history of a controversial topic is a great way to gain knowledge however. While the final (current) version of a wiki article might be extremely limited, in what is allowed to be, the history is full of all kinds of information, and the fight over what is to be considered "real" or "true" is often entertaining.

One can learn not only about the matter at hand, but the intense fighting over the issue is also a way to learn. Especially about the various views and beliefs of varied minds, from all over the planet.

[Liszt]

Are you people being serious?

he point is - wikipedia is not to be trusted.

The proof is that Wikipedia has been edited by various interest groups who have rewritten information.

The result is that even the US DoJ has been banned.

The conclusion is that anyone who continues to rely on this information (normally while attempting to alienate other sources) is being dishonest.

This is a split from the other wikipedia thread - some wikipedia editors (implied) were under the impression that there was a set of rules governing wikipedia. Yeah - different rules, but hey. Check p3 of the other wikipedia thread on this page (before it gets "reverted")

[Liszt]

I don't get this thread either, but I think Liszt's second link is supposed to be this one: http://www.mister-info.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=10545&format=html


I think you're right - what's going on? My PC is playing wierd games. What's going on?

[defaultdotxbe]

Are you people being serious?

he point is - wikipedia is not to be trusted.

The proof is that Wikipedia has been edited by various interest groups who have rewritten information.
wikipedia? being edited? by people on the internet?

say it isnt so!

I think you're right - what's going on? My PC is playing wierd games. What's going on?
you copied and pasted from somewhere else, but that doesnt preserve formating (including hyperlinks)

[Liszt]

do as you will with this thread, but somethng seems to have happened to my PC in the last 15 minutes or so - perhaps a virus. Sorry about that. The links are not even pretending to be accurate.

[robinson]

You dared go against the secret Wikipedia Cabal. Our powers are vast and mysterious. Go forth, and don't do it again.

[fullflavormenthol]

It really depends what you're looking at. Some articles are well written and thoroughly sourced. They provide an excellent starting place to get familiar with a topic and then move out and look into the various linked sources.

I would not be inclined to use Wikipedia for a controversial topic, however.
I agree. I just believe that like any encyclopedia, wikipedia is a start not a finish.

[Liszt]

You dared go against the secret Wikipedia Cabal. Our powers are vast and mysterious. Go forth, and don't do it again.

lol! Anyway, scan time, so see you in a day or so.

[applecorped]

calm down.

[Slayhamlet]

Nothing in the OP suggests that "Wikipedia is run by fools".

[defaultdotxbe]

maybe NIST is hacking you

[Slayhamlet]

lol! Anyway, scan time, so see you in a day or so.

You don't have a virus. You copied the link incorrectly. Sheesh.

[gumboot]

Wikipedia isn't really any worse than other Encyclopedias. (http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html)

[BenBurch]

If you want to understand the thread you need to read the other Wiki thread.

Liszt is PO-ed that I told him we have rules over there and try to enforce them.

[fullflavormenthol]

Only on wikipedia could you find completely wrong information in regards to the history of the religion of wicca, which went unaltered for over one year, costing me three different accounts and getting my college network banned from editing wikipedia.

So wikipedia isn't as bad as other encyclopedias; in many ways it is worse, because at least you can lock down who is responsible for the writing of the big boys.

STILL AGAIN, ANY ENCYCLOPEDIA IS MERELY A STARTING PLACE.

http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf

[fullflavormenthol]

Not saying it is a conspiracy, but it isn't a source as much as a place to find sources.

[David Wong]

Not saying it is a conspiracy, but it isn't a source as much as a place to find sources.

Thank you. Look at what they're citing and judge for yourself.

[Elizabeth I]

Wikipedia isn't really any worse than other Encyclopedias. (http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html)

Well, when I was a little girl, my Compton's Encylopedia had a story about a bear cub and pictures of those weird deep-sea fish (not in the same volume, of course.) I bet Wikipedia can't match that. (I just thought of this: Do you think the Compton's thing was part of the Zionist encyclopedia plot?)

[Drudgewire]

I'm wondering if a lot of this wikipedia hate isn't backlash from people who got Fs on papers they were dumb enough to use wiki as the whole of their reseach for. :p

[BenBurch]

Only on wikipedia could you find completely wrong information in regards to the history of the religion of wicca, which went unaltered for over one year, costing me three different accounts and getting my college network banned from editing wikipedia.

...



If you lost three accounts and got your college banned, you were acting like a Troll.

I would be amused to find what you think the right information is contrasted with what you found there?

I'll warn you in advance, that this is one of my areas of scholarship.

[BenBurch]

Well, when I was a little girl, my Compton's Encylopedia had a story about a bear cub and pictures of those weird deep-sea fish (not in the same volume, of course.) I bet Wikipedia can't match that. (I just thought of this: Do you think the Compton's thing was part of the Zionist encyclopedia plot?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea_fish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelican_eel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fangtooth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_hagfish

And lots more denizens of the deep to be found.

[Caper]

Are you people being serious?

he point is - wikipedia is not to be trusted.


Really?.... and this is news because.. why? It can be edited by anyone, of course it is not to be regarded as absolute.

[BenBurch]

Really?.... and this is news because.. why? It can be edited by anyone, of course it is not to be regarded as absolute.

Correct, but generally it is quite good and vandalism gets reverted promptly as fullflavormenthol seems to have found out the hard way.

[Alareth]

Am I supposed to be shocked, stunned and amazed that Wikipedia isn't completely accurate?

[Gregory]

Wikipedia isn't really any worse than other Encyclopedias. (http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html)

The Encyclopedia Britannica disagrees (http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf)

That aside, I love Wikipedia; I use it all the time. I'm reading xkcd and want to check out a mathematical reference I don't get; I want to know how many volumes there are in a comic series I'm considering starting to collect; I want a chronological checklist of Carr's Gideon Fell Mysteries, and of Wodehouse's Jeeves books; I'm curious to know how
and a thousand other different things that aren't urgently important, but that I'm curious about.

Just how I'd use a print encyclopedia, really.

[Cobalt]

Wikipedia's great for trivia. Anything else, not so much. They had an administrator who claimed to have a handful of impressive academic degrees, and a tenured theology professor, all of which was fabricated.

They routinely have administrators push their own points of view on articles, you can get banned if you even type like someone who was banned, not a good time.

At the end of the day, it's good if you want to know the history of Star Trek.

[gumboot]

At the end of the day, it's good if you want to know the history of Star Trek.


This is what I think Wikipedia is fantastic for. If you want something about pop culture, particularly about internet or computer culture, Wikipedia runs circles around something like Britannica.

Consider:

This (http://www.britannica.com/search?query=lol&ct=&searchSubmit.x=0&searchSubmit.y=0)

Versus

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lol).

The numbers are pretty straight forward - Wikipedia's english edition has 2.3 million articles - the 2007 Britannica has 699 articles in the Macropaedia and about 65,000 articles in the Micropaedia (over 95% of which have no references and are less than 750 words).

[Hokulele]

Well, I made the point in the other thread that Wiki should be the starting point for research, rather than the end.

On the other hand, I do find Wikipedia extremely helpful on a forum such as this as a reference for other people. For example, if I make a reference to King Kalakaua and someone asks, "Who is that?", I can link to the appropriate Wiki article for a summary. Since I know a bit about his history, I can verify that what is there is at least roughly accurate before linking.

On the gripping hand, there have been a few things where I first went to Wiki, and found some interesting books referenced on their site for more info.

Like anything else in life, people should learn critical thinking skills rather than relying on any one source of information.

[gumboot]

Another good think about something like Wikipedia is it's international - it's no coincidence that the largest article in Encyclopedia Britannica is on the United States.

But if you want to learn about my country - for example - the scope of Wikipedia allows for a much greater range of information in more detail, and with many many more links to sources and other websites where you can find out more.

[Gazpacho]

I was permanently blocked from Wikipedia for refusing to seriously discuss with an admin whether the Abu Dhabi article should include a section about an Abu Dhabi joke in the Garfield comic strip.

Therefore, I support this thread.

[Arus808]

since this isnt about conspiracy theories, this should be moved to The Computer and internet forum

[BenBurch]

I was permanently blocked from Wikipedia for refusing to seriously discuss with an admin whether the Abu Dhabi article should include a section about an Abu Dhabi joke in the Garfield comic strip.

Therefore, I support this thread.

So, you acted like a troll there? Its VERY hard to get permanently blocked. Almost impossible.

[Gazpacho]

So, you acted like a troll there? Its VERY hard to get permanently blocked. Almost impossible.
I crossed an admin who thought pop culture trivia was cool. Under those circumstances it was quite easy.

Also, the thread should be moved to C&I.

[BenBurch]

I crossed an admin who thought pop culture trivia was cool. Under those circumstances it was quite easy.

Also, the thread should be moved to C&I.

Admins don't have that authority. It has to go before a committee, and there is a length arbitration process. Takes weeks. Evidence on both sides. Etc.

Likely you were blocked for a week for tendentious editing and didn't understand the temporary nature of the suspension.

What was your Wiki username, and I'll research the matter.

[CFLarsen]

Are you people being serious?

he point is - wikipedia is not to be trusted.

The proof is that Wikipedia has been edited by various interest groups who have rewritten information.

The result is that even the US DoJ has been banned.

The conclusion is that anyone who continues to rely on this information (normally while attempting to alienate other sources) is being dishonest.

Whoa, hold it there, cowboy.

It depends on what type of information you rely on. Wikipedia is great for finding factual information, like the population of Bogota, where Las Vegas is, or who was 5th President of the USA.

As for the more "soft" types of information, where the reliance is more on opinion than fact? Dodgy.

Only on wikipedia could you find completely wrong information in regards to the history of the religion of wicca, which went unaltered for over one year, costing me three different accounts and getting my college network banned from editing wikipedia.

What did you want to change?

This is what I think Wikipedia is fantastic for. If you want something about pop culture, particularly about internet or computer culture, Wikipedia runs circles around something like Britannica.

Consider:

This (http://www.britannica.com/search?query=lol&ct=&searchSubmit.x=0&searchSubmit.y=0)

Versus

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lol).

The numbers are pretty straight forward - Wikipedia's english edition has 2.3 million articles - the 2007 Britannica has 699 articles in the Macropaedia and about 65,000 articles in the Micropaedia (over 95% of which have no references and are less than 750 words).

Maybe. But we are also talking about two different worlds here. Britannica is originally written for paper, which immediatedly limits what you can include. On Wikipedia, you can write until your fingers fall off.

Also, Britannica has a hired staff of researchers, which also limits what can be included. Wikipedia has a potential of every human being on this planet.

Finally, Britannica focuses on experts in their field. Wikipedia's biggest flaw is that truth is determined by popular vote. We know that isn't so.

[Gazpacho]

Admins don't have that authority. It has to go before a committee, and there is a length arbitration process. Takes weeks. Evidence on both sides. Etc.
You are misinformed. Admins have the technical ability to block users permanently and this one did, to keep me from removing his precious trivia.

Likely you were blocked for a week for tendentious editing and didn't understand the temporary nature of the suspension.No, see, I got a nice user page tag that says "permanently blocked." So there's no misunderstanding.

What was your Wiki username, and I'll research the matter.Take a guess. It was only a minor inconvenience, as I picked up a new account as soon as my IP address cycled. Of course, that account is also subject to a summary block if it's ever identified.

[Confuseling]

Reading the history of a controversial topic is a great way to gain knowledge however. While the final (current) version of a wiki article might be extremely limited, in what is allowed to be, the history is full of all kinds of information, and the fight over what is to be considered "real" or "true" is often entertaining.

One can learn not only about the matter at hand, but the intense fighting over the issue is also a way to learn. Especially about the various views and beliefs of varied minds, from all over the planet.

I agree with this. I often read the 'talk' page before I read the article itself - it's the easiest way to digest the controversy.

What do you think of Citizendium (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page)? I understand that it's in its infancy, so it's hard to judge yet. I think it was started by rogue wikipedians who believed that wiki would inevitably self-destruct, and needed tighter rules for who could contribute.

[BenBurch]

You are misinformed.

Guessing that the username was the same, that one says;

This user has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that they have used one or more accounts abusively.
The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.
See block log and lists of suspected and confirmed accounts.

block log says;


12:53, 28 January 2008 Earle Martin (Talk | contribs) blocked "Gazpacho (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Continued misbehavior after repeated warnings in the past, use of sock puppets (User:BillyMurray).)

21:43, 16 December 2007 StuffOfInterest (Talk | contribs) blocked "Gazpacho (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (Vandalism: Repeat vandalism)

09:09, 17 November 2007 Earle Martin (Talk | contribs) blocked "Gazpacho (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.168.53.206&diff=prev&oldid=164620015|Repeated] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gazpacho&diff=prev&oldid=171852433|incivility.])

07:21, 3 January 2006 Longhair (Talk | contribs) unblocked Gazpacho (Talk | contribs) ‎ (Unblocking after review of content. Please be sure to provide better sources than "just read it" in future thanks)

07:19, 3 January 2006 Longhair (Talk | contribs) blocked "Gazpacho (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 0 ‎ (Unblocking after review of content. Please be sure to provide better sources than "just read it" in future thanks)

07:06, 3 January 2006 Longhair (Talk | contribs) blocked "Gazpacho (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Re-creation of Back Door Sluts 9 depsite many warnings)


In addition, "technical means" showed that account as having also been editing under the following aliases;

User:24.19.31.253

User:BillyMurray

User:Spooner

So, sorry, but you seem to have earned it, if that was your account.

Sockpuppeting is one of the things that does not require lengthy process as its open and shut. (though you can appeal)

And the blocking admin is not the same as the checkuser admin who confirmed the sock. This was not something he did on a whim.

[Gazpacho]

So, sorry, but you seem to have earned it, if that was your account.

Sockpuppeting is one of the things that does not require lengthy process as its open and shut. (though you can appeal)

And the blocking admin is not the same as the checkuser admin who confirmed the sock. This was not something he did on a whim.
I created alt accounts (which I never used as sockpuppets per se) because I was blocked by an idiot admin for removing trivia about a cartoon cat from an article about a major city.

Note that Spooner was not one of my accounts, but merely another person who agreed with me and was blocked for that reason. Anyone who says they confirmed that as one of my accounts by "technical means" was lying.

You responded pretty much the way I expected: The problem is never with Wikipedia, but with those trolls who say something is wrong with it.

PS: And no, I cannot appeal, because the talk page (where I would normally post the appeal) was protected. In fact I think that at one point I was blocked on the basis that I was "vandalizing" my own user page or talk page.

[timhau]

Nothing in the OP suggests that "Wikipedia is run by fools".

That's because MaGZ proved in another thread that it's run by Zionists. And Zionists are a lot of things, but fools they are not.

[mrbaracuda]

The result is that even the US DoJ has been banned.

In my police state? Preposterous! Arrest this man, flying pigs! Arrest him! :mad:

:pigsfly:pig::pigsfly:pig::pigsfly

You're gonna get it now! :D

[Lothian]

Wikipedia would become far more acceptable and popular if it wrote the words 'DON'T PANIC' on the cover.

[robinson]

Wikipedia would become far more acceptable and popular if it wrote the words 'DON'T PANIC' on the cover.

heh heh

Good one.

A free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Of course it is run by fools. Only a fool would believe such a project could work, and only fools would do all that work and not expect to get paid.

Same kind of fools that thought a Video sharing social network could work.

Bring on the fools. Fools get stuff done, while scoffers are still trying to understand what the fools are talking about.

[Liszt]

heh heh

Good one.

A free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Of course it is run by fools. Only a fool would believe such a project could work, and only fools would do all that work and not expect to get paid.

Same kind of fools that thought a Video sharing social network could work.

Bring on the fools. Fools get stuff done, while scoffers are still trying to understand what the fools are talking about.

you are right here. Sorry, I was in unbelievably bad mood yesterday, helped by 2 bottles of red wine and 2 bottles of black beer (ran out of wine). I'm amazed I managed to even type the words out actually.

[TheDaver]

Correct, but generally it is quite good and vandalism gets reverted promptly as fullflavormenthol seems to have found out the hard way.
Vandalism isn't the only problem. Special interest groups pushing their point of view on topics is another. Wikiproject Animal Rights is a shining example.

[robinson]

I agree with this. I often read the 'talk' page before I read the article itself - it's the easiest way to digest the controversy.

What do you think of Citizendium (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page)? I understand that it's in its infancy, so it's hard to judge yet. I think it was started by rogue wikipedians who believed that wiki would inevitably self-destruct, and needed tighter rules for who could contribute.

I'm curious about that as well.

My favorite wiki is wikiality, where we are honest about what determines reality.

[robinson]

you are right here. Sorry, I was in unbelievably bad mood yesterday, helped by 2 bottles of red wine and 2 bottles of black beer (ran out of wine). I'm amazed I managed to even type the words out actually.

Good to know. It is always better to find out somebody was drunk, than to discover they are crazy.

Because you can sober up, but sometimes crazy is forever.

[Confuseling]

:D Let's not forget that you can stay drunk for a really long time as well if you put your mind to it.

I know I've tried...

[BenBurch]

Ummm, yes, you CAN vandalize your own talk page because its not yours.

It exists for a purpose of the project, and you may not remove warnings or other similar things whatsoever.

[dudalb]

Whoa, hold it there, cowboy.

It depends on what type of information you rely on. Wikipedia is great for finding factual information, like the population of Bogota, where Las Vegas is, or who was 5th President of the USA.

As for the more "soft" types of information, where the reliance is more on opinion than fact? Dodgy.



What did you want to change?



Maybe. But we are also talking about two different worlds here. Britannica is originally written for paper, which immediatedly limits what you can include. On Wikipedia, you can write until your fingers fall off.

Also, Britannica has a hired staff of researchers, which also limits what can be included. Wikipedia has a potential of every human being on this planet.

Finally, Britannica focuses on experts in their field. Wikipedia's biggest flaw is that truth is determined by popular vote. We know that isn't so.

IMHO a good summation of the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia.

The "write until your fingers fall off" is not always a virtue...particularly in an encyclopedia. It can mean that the basic important facts get lost in a sea of trivia.
I am convinced that sooner or later they will have to abadon the "anybody can edit " mode and go into a "anybody can submit " mode. That would mean you could still have the potential for tapping a huge knowledge base but have the means to keep the fanatics and the crackpots out.
Encylopedias ...and facts in general...are one place where democracy does not work. 2 plus 2 equals 4 no matter how many vote that it equals five.

[BenBurch]

No, truth does not enter into Wikipedia.

Wikipedia isn't what it true, it is what is PUBLISHED.

You might know something to be true, but unless it is published in an acceptable source, it does not belong in Wikipedia.

This is what is meant by no Original Research.

If you think your revelation is publishable, do so. Then no doubt it will appear on Wikipedia.

[Confuseling]

...
Encylopedias ...and facts in general...are one place where democracy does not work. 2 plus 2 equals 4 no matter how many vote that it equals five.

You might have thought so.

I present...

yoism (http://www.yoism.org/)

Open source religion.

Yes, honestly.

[Gazpacho]

Ummm, yes, you CAN vandalize your own talk page because its not yours.

It exists for a purpose of the project, and you may not remove warnings or other similar things whatsoever.
That's not what I was doing. You're just assuming so, typically, for the purposes of your apologetics.

Let me remind you that all this came about because I was removing trivia about a cartoon cat from an article about a major city, and an admin wanted me to "discuss" whether that was a good thing to do.

[geni]

That's not what I was doing. You're just assuming so, typically, for the purposes of your apologetics.

Let me remind you that all this came about because I was removing trivia about a cartoon cat from an article about a major city, and an admin wanted me to "discuss" whether that was a good thing to do.


Well of course disscussion is the way these things are decided on wikipedia. Blunt force reverting is unhelpful (you realise there is a fair chance the admin doesn't actualy care about the factoid?). Garfield is extreamly widely read which means it's impact may be rather higher than you think. Of course an experence wikipedian would have responded by creating [[City X in popular culture]] which solves most such problems.

[BenBurch]

And BTW, yes, making a new account when you have been blocked is the very definition of sockpuppetry on Wiki.

And you were removing valid warnings from an admin.

That is a cause for blocking you.

[dudalb]

And BTW, yes, making a new account when you have been blocked is the very definition of sockpuppetry on Wiki.

And you were removing valid warnings from an admin.

That is a cause for blocking you.

Hell,that is the very definition of sockpuppetry just about everywhere.

[robinson]

No, that is not what sock puppet means at all.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Wikipedia is bad. Very bad.

My main source of information is www.uncyclopedia.org :D

[robinson]

And with that,

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppet

[quixotecoyote]

You might have thought so.

I present...

yoism (http://www.yoism.org/)

Open source religion.

Yes, honestly.


Yoism kicks ass. If I'm speaking to someone I think will know what I'm talking about, I'll say I'm an atheist yoist. Yoism is also what I use in social situations where I can't admit I'm an atheist. It's a nice attempt to express what life means through various metaphors without assuming an actual supernatural presence behind them. Some yoists do of course, but it's not required.

[Morrigan]

Wikipedia's biggest flaw is that truth is determined by popular vote. We know that isn't so.
Indeed. Try convincing Wikipedia admins that Rolling Stone magazine or other mainstream sources are NOT reliable sources for underground music styles such as heavy metal, but that specialised sources are more accurate and reliable. Rolling Stone is more "notable", therefore it's more accurate. Complete bollocks of course.

No, that is not what sock puppet means at all.
Indeed, sock puppets are users who create another account while pretending to be someone different but endorsing the original user's viewpoint. If I created a new account with the username "Captain_Jack_Sparrow" and posted, "You are right, Morrigan, Wikipedia sucks for non-mainstream subjects", that would make Captain_Jack_Sparrow a sock puppet. If I get bored with my username or if I get banned and surreptiously come back as another name, but make no reference to "Morrigan's posts", it's ban-evasion at worst, but not sock puppetry.

I also noticed this tendency on Wikipedia to suspect sock puppets based on mere agreement and vague interpretation of "writing styles". I was even accused of being one for someone else, based on completely spurious evidence. Thankfully my accuser was not an admin, but rather a complete moron with a vendetta who was finally banned long after he was due. But he was being taken seriously for months. That's when I gave up caring about Wikipedia. As Claus said, it's good for some factoids or inane pop culture, but for some other subjects, it goes from mediocre to worthless.

[robinson]

I think you may be right about paranoid users imagining people are sock puppets, or banned users sneaking back in. I've never had anyone accuse me of anything like that. This is due to my unique and unmatched writing style of course.

And complete lack of pride or ego.

Based on what limited interactions I have had with wikimaniacs, I can see how the site is ripe for people getting seriously pissed off at stupid stuff, especially the clever bastards who know how to skirt the rules, whatever they are, and go for the whole consensus thing.

As to the dependence on sources, I can't think of any other way to have at least a semblance of sanity concerning articles. If anybody comes up with a better way to have a free encyclopedia, I'm sure thousands of people would jump ship and work on it instead.

Things like trivia about TV shows, music, really just about anything like that, benefit from their own Wikis. They tend to be populated by fans, ignored by vandals, but subject to the same sort of edit wars and fights over opinions that occur when worlds collide.

I use a few fan driven Wikis, and for the most part, they are excellent sources, with very little vandalism. They seem to have avoided the warzones by allowing any user to simply express opinions as well as "facts" about episodes.

Which really increases the amount of information, but also allows "original thoughts" to flower, but without the patina of "absolute truth", which makes such a mockery of contentious subjects.

[robinson]

I should point out, the opinions and musings are on different pages than the "main" entry.

I'm serious about a better way tyo have a free encyclopedia. The person who comes up with that will end up ruling the Internets.

[Pauliesonne]

" A fool is just a person blinded by his own foolishness. "

[Confuseling]

There was an idea floated by wikipedia itself, I believe, to alter the software such that you gain a 'credibility' score according to how long your edits tend to survive, and more credible writers are printed in darker fonts or something. This would obviously bias against those writing on controversial subjects, but I think they have ways to jiggerypoke it - if I remember rightly it's something like you losing credibility in direct proportion to the credibility of the person deleting you, so tireless revert warriors can't blacken names easily.

Anyway, it illustrates the point that they are aware that it has problems, and are working on it.

I got bored of my own voice and just found a link :D

http://technology.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19526226.200&feedId=online-news_rss20

[robinson]

Yoism kicks ass.

I am thinking of converting.

[geni]

I am thinking of converting.

I got it deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yoism

[robinson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoism

Hmm... interesting redirect. Those damn fools.

[Alkatran]

I use wikipedia for mathematics and computer science.

I get the feeling politicians and lobby groups don't give a damn about P=NP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_%3D_NP_problem).

[Elizabeth I]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea_fish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelican_eel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fangtooth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_hagfish

And lots more denizens of the deep to be found.

But no stories about baby bears. :p

[Alkatran]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear#Reproduction

Not a 'story' per say...

[geni]

I use wikipedia for mathematics and computer science.

I get the feeling politicians and lobby groups don't give a damn about P=NP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_%3D_NP_problem).

See the size of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:0.999...


also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LAME

[robinson]

That is some of the best stuff ever!

[Aitch]

That is some of the best stuff ever!

And provides good reasons for trusting Wikipedia about as far as you can comfortably spit a rat. :)

(I was going to say as far as you can throw a Sun E10K - but that's a bit too geeky :o)

[Dragoonster]

I have a lot of free time so went into the "talk" and admin sections of wiki to ascertain their general bias. The most debatable issue (aside from insane admin people, which is very interesting in itself) seemed to be "The Troubles" in northern Ireland, and I was satisfied that the output was a generally good casual scope of the subject. Biased Wiki executives, as well as no-name contributers will always be a problem, but in general I find the information both informative, and verified by secondary documentation.

If you're expecting a book at every entry written by authorities (original work) you'll be sorely dissapointed in wiki. If you expect a general explanation of a topic, with plenty of references to shift to as you wish, you'll be satisfied. Well, mostly satisfied, wiki does have many sourceless articles.

For real world output, I'm not a polymath, so reference it for many things on this forum. Higg's boson? I had no freaking clue what that was, so looked it up on .google, which led me to many links including wiki, which explained it as much as my little mind could comprehend.

I had questions about the Large Hadron Collider and instead of wasting people's time here, searched wiki until I had what I perceived were nontrivial questions that it did not answer.

As a catch-all it's great. And as a template it's also great. Wookiepedia for example answered many of my questions about Star Wars trivia and timelines that I couldn't get answered elsewhere. And a Star Trek wiki answered my questions about the prime directive, and how many episodes Clancy Brown has been in. Quick, easy, >50% accurate relative to skepticism standards. Great.

Btw, yes, I'm a nerd! Be thankful I didn't reference comic book wiki :p

<disclaimer--one should base belief on multiple sources and wiki does not of itself fulfill that, but if you just want to know a bleeding trivial thing or general/superficial knowledge, it's an excellent source /disclaimer>

[Alkatran]

See the size of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:0.999...

True. But did you look at the page for 0.999...? It's an excellent article.

[negativ]

Something I found amusing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Safety_concerns

This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

It's funny to me because the only reason the article exists at all is because people who are (at least in theory) "experts on the subject" have raised and/or refuted the points described in the article.

Maybe I'm just one of those nerds.

[EssenceOfMagic]

I reckon only authorised members should be able to edit. So much cross referencing needs to be done on it.

[SirPhilip]

ord to describe it any more. Not one that is not blocked by the censors, anyway. It's essentially a public consensus, and it's research benefits far outweigh the inherent problems allowing the public to edit it. Consider also, how Wikipedia introduces excellent habits to the public: by allowing them to modify articles sourcing and concise statements are also required.

[TheDaver]

It's essentially a public consensus, and it's research benefits far outweigh the inherent problems allowing the public to edit it.
Which makes it ever so slightly better than any other website in terms of reliability. Which is not very much at all.

[robinson]

The majority of sources used for Wikipedia are "reliable", and that alone makes it one of the best sources for information. If anyone can come up with a better way to have a free online encyclopedia, I'm sure all us fools will use it instead.

[CFLarsen]

It's essentially a public consensus

It's essentially public consensus that God exists.

[SirPhilip]

It's essentially public consensus that God exists. I can't parse this I'm afraid, Clouse. Some of coldest secular articles and the hottest pictures of Kali I've found on Wikipedia.

[SirPhilip]

Which makes it ever so slightly better than any other website in terms of reliability. Which is not very much at all. Come on, by rough estimate any given article is at least a 90% accurate assessment of any given subject, making it excellent for study. It is updated constantly also. But the other website being?

[TheDaver]

A website is where any idiot can post any sort of babble he wants.

Wikipedia is where thousands of them fight over whose babble is best.

[robinson]

No no no! You are describing this forum! Wikipedia requires sources!

[CFLarsen]

Come on, by rough estimate any given article is at least a 90% accurate assessment of any given subject, making it excellent for study.

How do you assess the accuracy?

[SirPhilip]

How do you assess the accuracy? Type in twenty article entries from a variety of topics off the top of your head. Spot any actual errors. Tally the ratio. My 90% estimate even is likely overcritical. As it's obvious purpose is to achieve encyclopedia quality articles, as well as the whole purpose of community re-editing, the result is further refined. The margin of actual error is though typically trivial. What other resource is being compared as well that I can type in on any given topic and get as much useful information?

[CFLarsen]

Type in twenty article entries from a variety of topics off the top of your head. Spot any actual errors.

How do you spot the errors?

Yes, it's the same question. Because you don't answer it.

[rjh01]

Look at topics you know well. This alone means that you should be able to spot errors.

Another way is to compare several articles on the same subject and look for differences in fact between the articles. Then find out which is correct.

Another way is to check sources. If they have quoted someone find out if it is a valid quote.

Look for contractions within an article.

Lots of ways of finding errors. Just need a person who can think and has spare time.

[Wudang]

So it's a good resource for people with spare time? Gotcha.

[SirPhilip]

How do you spot the errors? Yes, it's the same question. Because you don't answer it. Yawn, you don't know what that is also now. Let's see, a glaring error is probably an unsourced statement contradicted by an available source. Examples:

Biographical: "George Washington was born on February 21, 1732", it is more or less established as fact he was born on the 22.

Or Technical: "The F-22 has a supercruise speed of mach 1.7 above sea level and a dash speed of mach 2.3.", the F-22 despite having fixed inlets actually likely having a dash speed far in excess of mach 2.3 above sea level.

Or The Obvious: "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (born October 26, 1947) is the junior United States Senator from New York, and a candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election. She is married to Bill Clinton." No evidence supports Hillary Rodham Clinton was or is psychologically and biologically female besides apparently having a daughter, Chelsea Clinton, which was more likely due to Bill Clinton and a well proportioned redhead, the type of woman incidentally that could ruin brother Philip's political career too.

Most Wikipedia errors are technicalities. Educated bickering then ensues, and it is cleaned up. It's still the best learning resource on the web however, unless someone wants to point out a better one.

[CFLarsen]

Yawn, you don't know what that is also now. Let's see, a glaring error is probably an unsourced statement contradicted by an available source.

Precisely.

So, in order to assess the accuracy of Wikipedia, you have to check elsewhere.

Most Wikipedia errors are technicalities.

How do you know that?

[elgarak]

So, in order to assess the accuracy of Wikipedia, you have to check elsewhere.

This is different for other resources exactly how?

[SirPhilip]

Precisely. So, in order to assess the accuracy of Wikipedia, you have to check elsewhere. Yes, which is simplistic and straightforward. Unlike a rigid encyclopedia, the composition of Wikipedia largely incorporates educated presumption, which is far more insightful than it is error.

How do you know that? Because I have access to Wikipedia..

[ddt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:0.999...


Hush! Don't tell doronshadmi (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112582) s/he could edit that page! (doron thinks that 0.999... and 1 are different numbers).

[Dragoonster]

Hush! Don't tell doronshadmi (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112582) s/he could edit that page! (doron thinks that 0.999... and 1 are different numbers).

They are. 0.999... =/= 1. The limit of 0.999 = 1. :jaw-dropp :p

Back on topic, who here would cite the hard copy Encyclopedia Britannica as a completely solid reference? If it were all online you may cite it as a starting-off point. Same as wiki. If you go to a wiki page you can quickly tell it's measure of citations too. If you go to the citations and find them credible, perhaps the wiki article is accurate for casual use. If the article has no citations or poor ones perhaps you assume you should go elsewhere for backing of your theory. Again, same as any encyclopedia.

The value of wiki is in its vastly quicker maximum update compared to traditional print, and its accesability. Both are amazing advances imo.

[TheDaver]

True, and a limitation of any comprehensive encyclopaedia is that the information is basically second-hand.

[BenBurch]

Hey, if you folks don't like the job we do over there, you are free to not use it.

[robinson]

I've discovered a way to add entries to wikipedia without dealing with most of the fools who think they run things.

[Leif Roar]

I'm serious about a better way tyo have a free encyclopedia. The person who comes up with that will end up ruling the Internets.

Impose an annual license fee on Internet access. Ear-mark this money for a government appointed organisation that is mandated to create and run an online dictionary, thesaurus, encylopedia, library and map service. Throw in other useful features such as PKI certificate authority, high security e-mail services and similar. Profit.

[Leif Roar]

Type in twenty article entries from a variety of topics off the top of your head. Spot any actual errors.

What about omissions, irrelevancies, skewered importance, exaggerated weight placed on fringe views and amusing tidbits crowding out the central information?

The whole idea of an "encyclopedia anyone can edit" fails on two accounts:

1. It fails to understand the necessity of encyclopedias to be trustworthy.
2. It fails to understand the purpose and process of editing.


Wikipedia is great as a searchable collection of trivia, but there's more to an encyclopedia than that.

[robinson]

I've heard claims that WP is slanted towards fringe theories, woo stuff, and gives weight to nonscience. After examining quite a few entries, I see skeptics having a pretty good hold on WP, especially in regards to medical entries.

Of course that could have changed since I checked.

The entry on Chiropractic, (which of course has the "The neutrality of this article is disputed." box up top), is an example.

Of course the whole idealism of having a free encyclopedia of all human knowledge is quite an undertaking. What a foolish concept. Free knowledge.

[Richard Masters]

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

Wikipedia is bad in so many ways that there is no word to describe it any more. Not one that is not blocked by the censors, anyway.

ETA - some people still consider wikipedia to be "ok" but it is not. As any fule no that it is not the case.

There's isn't as much wrong with Wikipedia as there is with people doing any research without looking up primary sources and thinking critically.

I get the feeling you have never read Wikipedia.

[Wudang]

Impose an annual license fee on Internet access.

Or even a cover charge to keep out the riff-raff.