Poor Wikipedia now taking hits from all sides - GoFuckYourself.com

CDSmith · 03-19-2007, 07:11 AM

"Credibility gap"... ha ha... I love it.

Is wikipedia the end-all-BE-all answer source that some think it is?

http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Worl...81932-sun.html

Canada's Sun Media is now fucking with them.

Then there's things like this...

Quote:

Just last week, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales asked contributors who claim credentials to disclose their full names instead of a pseudonym, following an incident that rankled Wikipedians. One of their most prolific contributors, purporting to be a tenured professor of religion with expertise in canon law, was exposed as a fraud. EssJay, who made over 20,000 contributions, was in fact a 24-year-old college dropout from Kentucky.

I particularly like the final paragraph of the article

Quote:

In the meantime, users will have to rely on their good sense to understand, for example, that though it was temporarily posted on the world's largest encyclopedia, hunters have not resorted to a more humane method of seal hunting by coaxing animals with peanut butter and apricot jam sandwiches.

Halcyon · 03-19-2007, 08:48 AM

but the genius of Wiki is that the flow of info is transparent. You can see how info builds/is refuted/etc.

Phoenix · 03-19-2007, 08:57 AM

wikipedia is crap..it should be outlawed

think of all the naive people that bel9ieve everything on there

RawAlex · 03-19-2007, 09:05 AM

wikipedia is fine until it gets to areas not of fact but of judgement. That the major issues surround areas such as politics and religeon shouldn't surprise anyone. There is no such thing as definitive history on either subject.

Wiki is a great tool for straight issues. It is an easily corrupted tool when it comes to opinion.

Gunni · 03-19-2007, 09:21 AM

Wikipedia had a lesser % of errors than britannica...

J. Falcon · 03-19-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

wikipedia is crap..it should be outlawed

think of all the naive people that bel9ieve everything on there

The naive people should be outlawed to think.

_Rush_ · 03-19-2007, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halcyon

but the genius of Wiki is that the flow of info is transparent. You can see how info builds/is refuted/etc.

Right on the spot.

corvette · 03-19-2007, 09:30 AM

haha, credibility gap was another word for "lie" when used around watergate/nixon

ElvisManson · 03-19-2007, 09:34 AM

the word wiki by it's very definition means that anyone can edit the content.

wiki:

A collaborative website whose content can be edited by anyone who has access to it.

FYI... I got this definition from dictionary.com just to be on the safe side...lol

_Richard_ · 03-19-2007, 09:36 AM

i wish people from manitoba would find something better to do

R

D · 03-19-2007, 09:44 AM

Wiki's a great concept, and while I wouldn't use it as a reference in a paper I might be writing, or anything definitive, Wikipedia's usually the first thing I'll turn to if I want some quick information.

Now if they could set things up so that there was formal peer reviewing of all articles that were submitted _before_ they go live, that would probably be best in the end.

Brad · 03-19-2007, 09:46 AM

Interesting article. Do we assume that everything that we read is the truth though? I doubt that anyone with a brain ever takes information on the internet to be the absolute truth. If it is important to know the truth it's usually best to find a primary source for the information, even then it is important to verify the information from another source or two. Wikipedia to me serves only to give background information on something that I only have a passive interest in. Pretty funny that this article appeared in the Sun...considering it is a joke of a newspaper in the first place. They were probably just pissed off because their reporters were getting false information from the site

mikeyddddd · 03-19-2007, 11:04 AM

They usually catch stuff like this:

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

Pope Paul VI (Flos florum)
Pope Paul VI, FUCK YOU who reigned from 1963-1978, is described in the prophecies as Flos florum (flower of flowers). His personal arms bore three fleurs-de-lis, the well-known symbol in flags and heraldry used to represent the French monarchy. "Fleur-de-lis" literally means "flower of louis" (as a reference to the Louis Kings of France). However, this disregards all the other papal arms that had flowers on them as well.

drjones · 03-19-2007, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunni

Wikipedia had a lesser % of errors than britannica...

Actually, I think the study showed that they had a slightly higher % of errors, but the articles, on average, had over twice the content of traditional encyclopedias.

It really is an amazing resource, and all references are cited, so you can go find the source of the information yourself and decide if its accurate.

timberlands · 03-19-2007, 11:56 AM

If it doesn't make $ it's a pile of junk

CDSmith · 03-19-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Sexbankroll

i wish people from manitoba would find something better to do

R

Is there a higher cause than the pursuit of truth and accuracy of information?

I think not.

03-19-2007, 08:48 AM	#2
Halcyon Spread The Pink! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: TrampStampStudios.com Posts: 8,609	but the genius of Wiki is that the flow of info is transparent. You can see how info builds/is refuted/etc. __________________ HAL on TEDx:

03-19-2007, 08:57 AM	#3
Phoenix BACON BACON BACON Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Poems everybody, the laddie fancies himself a poet Posts: 35,457	wikipedia is crap..it should be outlawed think of all the naive people that bel9ieve everything on there __________________ Skype Phoenixskype1 Telegram PhoenixBrad https://quantads.io

03-19-2007, 09:30 AM	#8
corvette Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: scottsdale Posts: 7,880	haha, credibility gap was another word for "lie" when used around watergate/nixon __________________ If you need a good company for check writing services, then check out checkissuing, and for webhosting, check out Phoenix NAP

03-19-2007, 09:44 AM	#11
D Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: The Valley Posts: 7,412	Wiki's a great concept, and while I wouldn't use it as a reference in a paper I might be writing, or anything definitive, Wikipedia's usually the first thing I'll turn to if I want some quick information. Now if they could set things up so that there was formal peer reviewing of all articles that were submitted _before_ they go live, that would probably be best in the end. __________________ -D. ICQ: 202-96-31

03-19-2007, 09:46 AM	#12
Brad Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 2,510	Interesting article. Do we assume that everything that we read is the truth though? I doubt that anyone with a brain ever takes information on the internet to be the absolute truth. If it is important to know the truth it's usually best to find a primary source for the information, even then it is important to verify the information from another source or two. Wikipedia to me serves only to give background information on something that I only have a passive interest in. Pretty funny that this article appeared in the Sun...considering it is a joke of a newspaper in the first place. They were probably just pissed off because their reporters were getting false information from the site __________________ Affiliate Manager/Media Buyer ICQ 376 978 529 Skype: bradleyjwscott [email protected]

03-19-2007, 09:05 AM	#4
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	wikipedia is fine until it gets to areas not of fact but of judgement. That the major issues surround areas such as politics and religeon shouldn't surprise anyone. There is no such thing as definitive history on either subject. Wiki is a great tool for straight issues. It is an easily corrupted tool when it comes to opinion.

03-19-2007, 09:21 AM	#5
Gunni Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Barcelona Posts: 2,385	Wikipedia had a lesser % of errors than britannica...

03-19-2007, 09:34 AM	#9
ElvisManson Looking California Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 5,476	the word wiki by it's very definition means that anyone can edit the content. wiki: A collaborative website whose content can be edited by anyone who has access to it. FYI... I got this definition from dictionary.com just to be on the safe side...lol

03-19-2007, 09:36 AM	#10
_Richard_ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Vancouver Posts: 30,986	i wish people from manitoba would find something better to do R

03-19-2007, 11:04 AM	#13
mikeyddddd Viva la vulva! Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself Posts: 16,557	They usually catch stuff like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes Pope Paul VI (Flos florum) Pope Paul VI, FUCK YOU who reigned from 1963-1978, is described in the prophecies as Flos florum (flower of flowers). His personal arms bore three fleurs-de-lis, the well-known symbol in flags and heraldry used to represent the French monarchy. "Fleur-de-lis" literally means "flower of louis" (as a reference to the Louis Kings of France). However, this disregards all the other papal arms that had flowers on them as well. __________________ AdultStarProfits AmbyaCash AnilosCash AzianiGold ColdHardCash FlashTheMoney IdolBucks MediumPimpin NSCash Nubiles PussyCash ScoreCash Sextronix SpunkyCash TubeTitans Twistys

03-19-2007, 11:56 AM	#15
timberlands Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 504	If it doesn't make $ it's a pile of junk