Whoo-hoo! Wikipedia is down!

[Amelia G]

Wikipedia appears to be experiencing downtime and it couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of disingenuous destroyers of knowledge and culture

[Bikerpunk]

This should be good. It's an inside reference somehow, care to elaborate?

[Senior_Diablo]

oh noes! now where will i find information that may or may not be true? lol

[VoldtaEngler]

True story..this guy actually owns a porn site business now.

[Bikerpunk]

True story..this guy actually owns a porn site business now.

Who is this?

[Mr Karl]

haven't gotten around to checking out this 'wiki' thing yet......one day

[Amelia G]

haven't gotten around to checking out this 'wiki' thing yet......one day

You are missing nothing. It is one of the most insidious products of the web.

[batzilla]

You are missing nothing. It is one of the most insidious products of the web.

I know a lot of people who look down on the wiki. Why do you call it insidious, though?

[ForrestBlack]

I say we celebrate with yellow beer, to symbolize the yellow bellies of cowardly anonymous sock puppets everywhere.

[Amelia G]

I know a lot of people who look down on the wiki. Why do you call it insidious, though?

Because Wikipedia is an easy jumping-off point when doing research on a new topic, it is often a resource for people being exposed to new ideas. Unfortunately the information in their is incredibly corrupt and this means that it is pretty much one of the top spreaders of BS today. I know there is almost nothing accurate in the Blue Blood entry on there. What kind of absurdity is it for a site to prefer authors who are supposed to pretend to be uninterested and uninvolved in what they write about? Strangers can spread lies about me (and everyone and everything else under the sun) on there, but it would be against their TOS for me to correct them.

[Senior_Diablo]

Because Wikipedia is an easy jumping-off point when doing research on a new topic, it is often a resource for people being exposed to new ideas. Unfortunately the information in their is incredibly corrupt and this means that it is pretty much one of the top spreaders of BS today. I know there is almost nothing accurate in the Blue Blood entry on there. What kind of absurdity is it for a site to prefer authors who are supposed to pretend to be uninterested and uninvolved in what they write about? Strangers can spread lies about me (and everyone and everything else under the sun) on there, but it would be against their TOS for me to correct them.

i remember reading about how they(the wikipedia admins or what ever) tracked users ip addresses and found that people from certain companies were editing their own articles to make the company look better and what not.. one minute an article about some one/something could be good, the next minute some one might decide they dont like it and change it how ever they please, putting false information in there or removing the true info.

[Amelia G]

i remember reading about how they(the wikipedia admins or what ever) tracked users ip addresses and found that people from certain companies were editing their own articles to make the company look better and what not.. one minute an article about some one/something could be good, the next minute some one might decide they dont like it and change it how ever they please, putting false information in there or removing the true info.

I remember when there was a spate of articles about that. As I recall, MSNBC was in a tizzy because FOX got busted out for editing the MSNBC profiles of various newscasters. The truth is that most of the people editing Wikipedia are people with agendas, frequently sucky agendas. I don't have the emotional energy to go over there and make things I know about be correct. The kind of people who edit real encyclopedias are people who enjoy learning and teaching, sharing knowledge, but the people who edit Wikipedia are the kind of people who enjoy fighting and tricking people into believing ridiculous things.

[cate]

Amen sister! Are you familiar with Noam Chomskey?

[VoldtaEngler]

Who is this?

You don't remember the
"Remember me? I had a report due on space." Kid back in late 80's early 90's selling encyclopedia britannica books. All over the tv.

Here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donavan_Freberg <~LOL Toungue in cheek.

[One Eyed Cat]

The creator of wickedpedia should be shot, reanimated, then shot again on general principle. This has been the largest step backward in the exchange of open ideas since the beginning of the renaissance.

OEC

[Amelia G]

The creator of wickedpedia should be shot, reanimated, then shot again on general principle. This has been the largest step backward in the exchange of open ideas since the beginning of the renaissance.

OEC

Amen.

[Bikerpunk]

You don't remember the
"Remember me? I had a report due on space." Kid back in late 80's early 90's selling encyclopedia britannica books. All over the tv.

Here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donavan_Freberg <~LOL Toungue in cheek.

I was living in Canada and/or Europe at the time...

[Senior_Diablo]

I remember when there was a spate of articles about that. As I recall, MSNBC was in a tizzy because FOX got busted out for editing the MSNBC profiles of various newscasters. The truth is that most of the people editing Wikipedia are people with agendas, frequently sucky agendas. I don't have the emotional energy to go over there and make things I know about be correct. The kind of people who edit real encyclopedias are people who enjoy learning and teaching, sharing knowledge, but the people who edit Wikipedia are the kind of people who enjoy fighting and tricking people into believing ridiculous things.

lol. i didnt hear about that one... it would probably be a waste of time to correct things you know about, it would probably just get messed up again.

[OliX]

hey! don't touch my freedom of editing!

[Morning Glory]

according to wikipedia, all the things you are saying about it are false.

seriously though, I think the hatred is a bit far off. I know that it's too much to ask for people to employ some degree of filtering, but if you are a person that can take things with a grain of salt, then wiki is good for getting a general consensus on an issue.

opinionated and slanted, yes. But I don't see many things that are just outright lies on there. Almost always you will see on there wiki making it known that an article is lacking in credibility or not citing sources. I just don't really prescribe to the apparent conspiracy theory that they are intentionally trying to keep people from editing things to be consistent to fact.

[Amelia G]

according to wikipedia, all the things you are saying about it are false.

seriously though, I think the hatred is a bit far off. I know that it's too much to ask for people to employ some degree of filtering, but if you are a person that can take things with a grain of salt, then wiki is good for getting a general consensus on an issue.

opinionated and slanted, yes. But I don't see many things that are just outright lies on there. Almost always you will see on there wiki making it known that an article is lacking in credibility or not citing sources. I just don't really prescribe to the apparent conspiracy theory that they are intentionally trying to keep people from editing things to be consistent to fact.

It is not a conspiracy; it is a series of flaws in the system. A person who spends a dedicated amount of time on the Wikipedia site can have a disproportionate impact on what people are likely to know about any topic they wish to mess with. For example, there is a user named Crescentia who refuses to get a proper Wikipedia account, so no one can use Wikipedia's talk feature with her properly, but she has personally screwed up most of the gothic and deathrock pages on Wikipedia. And that is just one person's damage which was pointed out to me because she edited so many pages of interest to me personally.

Consensus editing only works if everyone is striving for the truth and there is some common ground. A lot of the editors there are merely attempting to pimp some product or other agenda and a lot just enjoy the feeling of power that reality hacking gives them.

Then again, check out the Recreational use for Morning Glory.

[Senior_Diablo]

It is not a conspiracy; it is a series of flaws in the system. A person who spends a dedicated amount of time on the Wikipedia site can have a disproportionate impact on what people are likely to know about any topic they wish to mess with. For example, there is a user named Crescentia who refuses to get a proper Wikipedia account, so no one can use Wikipedia's talk feature with her properly, but she has personally screwed up most of the gothic and deathrock pages on Wikipedia. And that is just one person's damage which was pointed out to me because she edited so many pages of interest to me personally.

that reminds of a time i seen a page that was locked(cant remember what page). at the top of the page it said something like "this page is currently locked due to user X"(dont remember the name)" using a dynamic ip to vandalize the page".. some people will persistently vandalize pages. wikipedia is a nice concept and what not. theres true information but the flaws in the system is what makes it some what unreliable and people with nothing better to do but ruin things for others, will take advantage of it.

[Morning Glory]

I guess I just see information exchange as a good thing, but with all macrocosms, you get a blow up of the micro. shit talking is something that we all have to deal with and I can understand why people don't like to see globalization of haters.

But I also tend to think that it is important to get a "general consensus" on a subject, even if it is incorrect. you (of course the rhetorical 'you', not anyone here) may not be an asshole, but it's informative to know that a lot of people think that you are one. Obviously if it's just one spiteful person out for slander, that's another case, and I think they need to work harder to crack down against that.

So what I am saying is that it has faults, but I think the concept is a good enough one that it's practicality still has merit. And where would I be without those wiki "recreational uses"?

that's really the challenge of the internet as a whole: See it, make up your own mind.

IMO, it's better than Don't see it, no choice.

[One Eyed Cat]

Because Wikipedia is an easy jumping-off point when doing research on a new topic, it is often a resource for people being exposed to new ideas. Unfortunately the information in their is incredibly corrupt and this means that it is pretty much one of the top spreaders of BS today. I know there is almost nothing accurate in the Blue Blood entry on there. What kind of absurdity is it for a site to prefer authors who are supposed to pretend to be uninterested and uninvolved in what they write about? Strangers can spread lies about me (and everyone and everything else under the sun) on there, but it would be against their TOS for me to correct them.

My former colleague on my ukrainian site had to constantly check his entries. We had several on my site at one time. It was insane the type of propaganda pro-Soviet idiots would try to spread. Luckily, we had both been steeped in their methodology. He's madslinger on ukrainian wickipedia. I think he may have just quit though. You simply cannot keep up.

OEC

[Bikerpunk]

My former colleague on my ukrainian site had to constantly check his entries. We had several on my site at one time. It was insane the type of propaganda pro-Soviet idiots would try to spread. Luckily, we had both been steeped in their methodology. He's madslinger on ukrainian wickipedia. I think he may have just quit though. You simply cannot keep up.

OEC

Your Ukranian site?

[Bikerpunk]

My former colleague on my ukrainian site had to constantly check his entries. We had several on my site at one time. It was insane the type of propaganda pro-Soviet idiots would try to spread. Luckily, we had both been steeped in their methodology. He's madslinger on ukrainian wickipedia. I think he may have just quit though. You simply cannot keep up.

OEC

Your Ukranian site?

[Amelia G]

My former colleague on my ukrainian site had to constantly check his entries. We had several on my site at one time. It was insane the type of propaganda pro-Soviet idiots would try to spread. Luckily, we had both been steeped in their methodology. He's madslinger on ukrainian wickipedia. I think he may have just quit though. You simply cannot keep up.

OEC

I believe it and the amount of time it takes to defend something like that can be crippling. A lot of companies have full time "reputation agents" dealing with Wikipedia libel every day, but a lean organization like mine can't do that. Wikipedia is really stacked against small business and in favor of big business that way.

[Bikerpunk]

I believe it and the amount of time it takes to defend something like that can be crippling. A lot of companies have full time "reputation agents" dealing with Wikipedia libel every day, but a lean organization like mine can't do that. Wikipedia is really stacked against small business and in favor of big business that way.

An all-volunteer if they fuck wit ya fuck em back squad?

[One Eyed Cat]

Your Ukranian site?

http://orangerevolution.us

It's mostly in english actually. Hasn't been terrible active in a couple years. I had a partner for awhile who wrote and linked articles for the ukrainian language wickedpedia.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

I believe it and the amount of time it takes to defend something like that can be crippling. A lot of companies have full time "reputation agents" dealing with Wikipedia libel every day, but a lean organization like mine can't do that. Wikipedia is really stacked against small business and in favor of big business that way.

I would imagine it's hellish for you. We really didn't suffer anything beyond some serious annoyances. We really just had to link and report the actual news via the action ukraine report and a few other sources. It could probably wipe a business out if the campaign was insidious enough.

OEC

[King Khaotic]

I've looked on wikipedia a couple of times, but after hearing all of the BS with Microsoft and Fox changing there entry's, i stopped checking there.

I do think it's funny that teachers at my high school have made sure to tell the students NOT to use wikipedia of they will lose credit if they do.