Printable View
a friend of mine (via twitter) recently pointed out to me that she hated Wikipedia...
how do you feel about Wikipedia or the Wiki phenomenon?
on a side note... Wikipedia has recently raised like 3 million dollars with a goal of 6 million... all through donations... look for a forthcoming illuminati "donation site" i have a goal of raising 6 million dollars as well... :thumb:
back to the Q... love or hate it?
3... 2... 1... discuss!
I am ambivalent about them.
An "okay" resource for gathering general superficial knowledge about a subject in about 5min.
Complete crap if you're looking for accuracy, or a detailed understanding of anything.
There are few subjects of which I happen to know the particulars of- As in I know who did what, to whom, and for how many jellybeans- and reading through the article histories of these various subjects is quite illuminating. Even what I would consider quite neutral treatments of certain subjects, and people can get fairly off base quickly. So I can only imagine what happens when with stuff I have no idea about.
So long as you're just looking for a mental toe hold/reference point, and understand the vulnerabilities of your source I think they're okay.
An entry on our beloved Blue Blood for an example comes to mind.
wikipedia has been a godsend when I can't sleep. I looooooooove wkipedia.
Same here... You can still see some unfinished topics and stuff. That's bad.
I couldn't find an entry about blueblood.
That's because we don't exist.
I never use it.
There might be a thread here about the BB wikipedia entry.
I remember reading at least 2 versions of it, the last one people were bitching about giving free advertising to BB. (In the comments section.)
Pornstar Allie Sin doesn't have one either.
BlueBlood is mentioned in the Alt Porn article, along with a few other sites.
It's good for quick references, but yeah...Not if you're looking for total accuracy. But still fun to go on.
What surprised me is that Swedish versions of inputs are more accurate and far more detailed than English. Isn't English supposed to be universal language of science?!
No.
No what?
English isn't supposed to the universal language of science. Latin is. Why do you think they name everything in Latin?
Oh that's what you meant. I thought you were answering on the topic.
Latin is a dead language. Nobody speaks it anymore and it's just used for naming things. Universal language of science is English. All scientific papers and journals are published on English worldwide.
the bank machines in the vatican are in latin.............
wikis fine..............although if I need to know absolutely I get a book
Published in English, but that doesn't mean the people who write the papers and journals use English as their first language.Quote:
Originally Posted by OliX
Was that in question at all?! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ajax Knucklebones
Of course I know that. I just expected I don't need to explain everything to you guys because you're smart enough to figure it out by your self. That's why my posts might seem uncompleted from time to time.
English is considered a universal language in scientific circles. Actually, most of the new teachings about new findings around the world are done only on English
I'm always on there.
Yes, you could make the claim that it is a generalization of topics and not detailed information, but that's the whole point. As others have said, if you want to read 500 pages about a subject than read a book about it. If you are looking for a one page encyclopedic description, that's what wiki is for.
The only real problem with inaccuracy stems from non-academic subjects where it is difficult to determine validity, and especially when it comes to contemporary people it can be used for gossip. But I don't think that is a good reason to discredit the whole site, which works about as hard as you can to filter accuracy on the internet. When it comes to subjects like science and history, people that don't know about them aren't going to be writing the articles and there is no reason for anyone to purposely lie about that stuff.
I remember when I was talking to a friend about old horror movies and I said "wouldn't it be cool if they made a movie of the Creature From The Black Lagoon versus the.. oh crap, what was that movie called? I think there was a shot of it in the title sequence of the show Malcolm In The Middle." So I looked up MITM on wiki, sure enough it listed all of the clips featured in the intro, and one of them was Creature From The Haunted Sea, the movie I was thinking of.
So there you have it, in 20 seconds I was able to find out the name of a movie that I had no idea what it was called based on the fact that it appeared for 2 seconds on an old TV show. That's how awesome Wikipedia is!
I hate it, mostly because it always comes up when someone wants to prove something to me, they read me something off the wiki page then I go back and add "so and so is a fucker who believes everything on this page" It is not reliable at all, the only time I use it is to get the urls off the bottom of the page if those even make sense a lot of them don't.
A lot of people think Wikipedia is a real encyclopedia and don't understand that any nimrod who takes the time to understand the site can edit reality on there. My mom just found it very hard to believe that such a site would not have some method of making sure editors actually knew what they were doing and did not have ulterior motives. So I told her to go to the page for mint and then I edited the mint entry to have some ludicrous "factoid" about how mint tastes terrible and asked her to reload the page. She was appalled and genuinely surprised.
There is a Blue Blood entry, but I haven't personally read it in years. Last I looked, it was mind-bogglingly inaccurate. There are folks like ** and Tucker Max who must get in there or have someone get in there like once a day to make it say what they want. I don't have the stomach for that. I want the things I do to matter because they matter and not because I paid a reputation agent to write the history books for me.
I sort of thought the system of having an impact on society was to do things important enough that historians would note them. With wikis, the system is stacked so that one no-life person can change the whole history of an entire area of study. Last I looked, there was one chick on Wikipedia who spends all day every day on there, editing deathrock and gothic entries so that nothing successful counts. Totally unimportant and unaccomplished person who simply deletes or rewrites whatever anyone else and has never done anything which matters . . . yet a wiki system allows her to edit how many people view the world.
Oh, and, Johnny, allow me to reiterate that you could have mentioned shanking without mentioning Wikipedia and I still would have known what you meant :p:
I love Wikipedia. One day I was looking for the Pythagorean Theorem to make sure I had remembered it right before looking like an idiot. And I found this:
http://www.freakblows.com/forum/uplo...1217439868.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockwulf
Wiki makes English reading people smarter by the day:thumb: :1orglaugh
those who are against wiki, I just don't understand your logic. How does a a false statement contradict a true one? what is true is still true, and what Wikipedia says doesn't change that. Yes, people have the ability to put false information on there, but people also have the ability to put true information on there and also to delete or revise information that they know to be false.
mint tastes terrible. this is a true statement, because maybe some people think that mint really does taste terrible. it's just as true as saying that mint tastes good. the only concrete statement that you could make would be that "mint might have a taste when you put it in your mouth."
the constant battle for truth: welcome to reality. Why do you believe anything that you hear? anyone can write a book, make a movie, or otherwise put out any information that may or may not be true. Comparatively, it is much harder to rewrite or revise that information than it is to change a wiki, which anyone can do, so I propose that it is in fact more accurate than any other means of information distribution.
the only "real" truth is what people individual and collectively choose to believe in, don't you know that everything is a figment of your imagination?
where is this absolute universe that you demand? you aren't going to find it in this lifetime.
yeah, Wikipedia is such bullshit. According to them President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865. How can we verify the accuracy of such a statement? We can't trust Wikipedia and the 80 other sources that they cited for this man's biography. It turns out that this conspiracy to spread disinformation goes all the way up to the top. Yes, the US government's own websites say the same heinous lies.
Now you're just being a douche.
true, but I have got a point. I think that people have a problem with it for personal reasons, IE: 'people talk shit about me or others on there', or 'people try to use it to make me look dumb and it's annoying'; rather than have a justified claim about how the website is generally wrong more than it's right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
Uhm, yeah, it does bother me that (1) I am not a public figure, yet people keep trying to put an entry for me on that libelous nonsense site and (2) the last time I looked (admittedly at least a year or two ago), almost everything it said about Blue Blood was egregiously wrong with no cites backing up any of the ridiculous stuff on there. Only there are people who really believe that is an encyclopedia, so it is damaging when people believe inaccurate information about a company, the company's history, how many people work for the company, what capacities they work for it in, what the company's main products are, where the company can be found on the web, etc.
If one nasty little person is up there spewing libel, there is no clear system for getting it addressed. I like my media with accountability.
I will be second in line for the first good attorney who wants to start a class action lawsuit against those criminals against human achievement over at Wikipedia.
And allow me to be clear: I don't recall the precise ludicrous wikiality I put up there for mint, but I promise you it was deeply false and inappropriate for a reference work. My mother knows I don't like the taste of mint, so that was part of it, but I actually agree that mint can't be categorically factually said to taste either good or bad. If someone does a study, it would be fair to say that "X% of the population enjoys the taste, X% hates it, and X% is indifferent, according to X and So Study with a sampling of X people", but no real encyclopedia would ever purport to be able to factually state whether mint has a pleasing or displeasing taste.
:yeeaaahh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia G
Most of the internet can go with it. The people who have been around .... we learned our lessons. Don't believe the hype surrounding anything or anyone.
OEC
I didn't say that it was right or that you weren't justified in feeling that way about the site, Amelia. I addressed that as one of the problems with the site in the first post that I made. But to reiterate, my point is that I don't feel such examples are across the board enough to make the claim that the site is less than accurate. Of course that could put a bad taste in someone's mouth and make them adverse to using it, but I don't think that necessarily make it useless for everyone. Maybe it's just me with a different POV because I use the site for history, geography and science mostly, and not for information on contemporary people and companies.
But I feel like it's a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you want to go against wiki for that, like OEC says, "most of the internet can go with it too."
I said before in the other thread where this was mentioned: I don't see a problem with it if you don't take everything you hear on faith and accept it with a healthy degree of skepticism and BS detector.
It shouldn't be used in court, but I think it's adequate to satisfy idle curiosity.
Oh, for the record here is what it says about Blue Blood.
that seems like a fair oversight to me.Quote:
Blue Blood (magazine)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page has been deleted. The deletion log for the page is provided below for reference.
* 01:17, 17 July 2008 Lifebaka (Talk | contribs) deleted "Blue Blood (magazine)" (Expired PROD, concern was: After 2 years of editing, article is still primarily unencylopedic insider/fansite chatter lacking basic coherent information for a general audience. Only company links and owner interviews; no third-party [[WP:Reli)
PS. in my post above this one when I said "less than accurate" I meant "mostly inaccurate".
I personally love wiki's. And find them quite amusing.
I'm being a bit facetious on that. It's just beyond silly season now. I don't think litigating is generally the answer. There are instances where it may be necessary though I would imagine. I would agree with the term "mostly inaccurate" (which equates to inaccurate basically)Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
OEC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
What the fuck part of I don't read that on purpose confused you? I do NOT fucking want to know what is on there.
I can't be creative with that enraging drivel in my head. I can't work when I am forced to think about the way everything I went hungry for, because I thought it was important, for so many years is fundamentally fruitless in ways I could never have imagined.
The irony that an inaccuracy deletion refers to the "site owners" is also inaccurate. If I were a man, nobody would ever invalidate my achievements so casually. I know I'm just an uppity little girl for thinking I could actually found or create anything. If it has cultural impact, there must be male owners in the haystack somewhere.
Thanks for ruining my week.
Non te confundant illegitimi, Amelia.
There are those of us with fond memories of print BlueBlood and who dig it now.
If you're getting under someone else's skin, it means you're doing something right.
you are one of those folks that i KNOW would understand shanking and other various forms of death mayhem and destruction!Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia G
the wiki link was supposed to be funny and a joke... "living dangerous..." as it were...
didn't quite work out that way...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bikerpunk
You are right.
Unfortunately, if various lazy "journalists" source Wikipedia at best or take bribes at worst and I allow Blue Blood to be edited out of the news and thus the history, then I'm also doing something wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonny.illuminati
It was funny and the general discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of wikis is fine. I just really didn't want to know what it said about anything that matters to me because I know it is always egregiously wrong on such matters.
I guess you aren't the only one, and it makes me sad to think that all of the people that have supported you throughout the years and the people that come on here every day to listen to what you have to say is apparently less validating than a website that you hate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia G
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
Normally I just avoid Wikipedia because I would far rather focus on the good things. There are a lot of good things in my world, so I try not to allow the bad things to spiral me into being sad and useless. There is some stuff, such as the specifics of the lies about me on Wikipedia, which I would rather not know, precisely because I would rather concentrate on the good than the bad. Doesn't mean I won't get all gothic if the ugly specifics are forced on me though.
I think you are saying that you didn't mean to ruin my week and you think I should have enough strength and self-knowledge not to let stupid Wikipedia make me feel invalidated. I appreciate your sentiment, although I really would prefer not to know that sort of thing in the future, but apology accepted.