Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on March 07, 2007, 01:33:46 PM
-
A tenured professor of religion at an astute college turns out to be a 24 year old. So much for using Wiki except for "that site that likes to re-write history". :rofl
You can read the full story here. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html)
-
I see that NASA canned Lisa Nowak today... maybe she can fill that spot. :D
-
Why wikipedia is a fraud, in 10 billion words or less. (http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/awp_index.html)
-
Anyone who takes wikipedia as fact needs to have their head examined.
-
for day to day items of interest i find it pretty valuable.
for instance, lets say i need to know who this person is that so and so referenced...but ya, it's gots some flaws on the details for sure.
perhaps if it were more like the urban dictionary with user ratings?
-
i enjoy reediting it to make the content funnier
also, on some topics it provides better related links than google
-
For once Debonair is right. The internet has become so vast that it's often difficult to search for anything, due to the millions of results for everything.
One of the first places I turn is to Wikipedia, not as a source of information, but as a source for other sources.
-
Next thing someone will be saying I can't believe everything I read.
Wanna bet? :eek:
-
Halo, you cant believe everything you read.
Just didnt want to leave ya hanging like that, would have been sad....
-
I'll go along with 88, deb and Laser. I use wiki to get started but havent never relied on it. Alot of the content I see (most WW2 aircraft stuff) is copied verbatium from other sites. and thats nothing new either.
3 years or so ago I looked up some stuff for the A-26, I found probably 10 sites that had the same entries word for word, and the same pictures, all of them looked liked they had been copied from the USAF Museum website.
-
Nature magazine did a study last year where they compared Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica.
They chose a series of random articles that existed in both and had them extensively scrutinized by teams of experts, and had some interesting results.
The Britannica articles had slightly fewer errors, and the Wikipedia articles were slightly longer, but they were roughly equivalent in accuracy.
The Essjay situation that started the thread was a disgrace, and he was asked to resign and his access rights were revoked. The community was furious about it, and a discussion about how credentials should be verified at certain levels in the project. I think it's telling that in this entire mess, there's been no evidence that he used his false credentials to insert false information. Apparently he waved them around in some discussions to win editorial arguments, but the accuracy of the data in the project was not affected.
Despite this, the reaction has been quite telling. As I see it, there are a number of people out there that have a bone to pick with Wikipedia because of a personal slight (perhaps their article was deleted or something like that) or assume that it must by necessity be terrible because they can't imagine that the anonymous editing structure would allow for quality.
To the latter, I urge you to go check out some articles on subjects that you know about and decide for yourselves. For the former group, give it another shot, things change, and maybe other areas of the project might still be useful to you. There's plenty of room.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Alot of the content I see (most WW2 aircraft stuff) is copied verbatium from other sites. and thats nothing new either.
That is absolutely unacceptable. Find me an example and I'll take care of it. I'm an administrator on Wikipedia, and copyright infringement is possibly the biggest danger to the project. We are merciless with violations, but need help.
Wikipedia is not MySpace. It is an online encyclopedia built in the model of the 'Cathedral and the Bazaar', and depends on proper GFDL content.
I recently added a bunch of pictures to aviation related articles from my visit to the Dayton, OH Air Force museum, and I have yet to encounter a copied photo in that area, but if you know of any, let me know right away.
-
Originally posted by Coshy
Anyone who takes wikipedia as fact needs to have their head examined.
So all books and magazines are WITHOUT QUESTION the "authority"? Got it marked down here, thanks.
-
All you ever need to know:
http://www.conservapedia.com/
-
*GASP* You mean people intentionally rewrite history?
I HAD NO IDEA.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
That is absolutely unacceptable. Find me an example and I'll take care of it. I'm an administrator on Wikipedia, and copyright infringement is possibly the biggest danger to the project. We are merciless with violations, but need help.
I shall retract my "verbatium" and say that it may have been in the past. I just now did a quick compare on the A-26 and did not see anything that looked like it was duplicated. I do recall seeing information that appeared to have been copied in the past but I cannot now reliably say that it was Wikipedia. I may have been mistaken, but i have seen a lot of duplicated information between various websites over the last 6 or 7 years
-
Originally posted by Booz
All you ever need to know:
http://www.conservapedia.com/
Rofl, like they are any more accurate or have less Bias?
Go read Wiki and that sites sections on Evolution.
Hell they don’t even list the references.
Wiki is wiki, I take it like I take most of the internet with a grain of salt, but I wont be going back to the other site and I am a conservative.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_Triebflugel
i did this awsome edit for the lols and great justice, but when i've done serious edits in the past (the Spoileron article comes to mind) they were gone real fast
-
Oh boy, here we go again. Yet something else for right wing Republican voting nerds to trash...
Beam me up, Scotty. Pretty please...
-
What the **** is a meme? I tried to read the wiki article, but got no where.
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Oh boy, here we go again. Yet something else for right wing Republican voting nerds to trash...
Beam me up, Scotty. Pretty please...
its you're own fault, you should have known better than beam down here in the first place. Oh btw, Scotty says your SOL, transportor is down and the shuttlecraft are up on cinder blocks after Sulu went for a joyride. You're stuck here...
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
A tenured professor of religion at an astute college turns out to be a 24 year old. So much for using Wiki except for "that site that likes to re-write history". :rofl
You can read the full story here. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html)
well that explains much...they were too young to know it in the first place:rofl
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
What the **** is a meme? I tried to read the wiki article, but got no where.
Aren't you up on your GURPS Transhuman Space?
A Meme is a cognitive or behavior pattern that can be transmitted from one individual to another; religions, philosophies, languages (including slang), morals, traditions, stories, fashions, and fads.
Memetics therefore is a "subfield of psychology, focusing on the semantic content of ideas and the means by which they can be most efficiently spread through human populations".
Think of "sound bites" as an example. You say the same few words over and over and over, until people take it as fact or truth. The current American Presidential Administration has taken this to a low art (high art would require some subtlety on their part).
Little Joey Goebbels would understand.
Other examples could be the cell phone as a status symbol and fashion.
It's a very wide topic, and somewhat appropriate topic within a Wiki thread.
As to Wiki reinventing history, that is the extreme minority of what is found in Wiki. Most of Wiki is blatant plagiarism and copywrite violation.
-
Just think of ideas as viruses.
-
"language is a virus" - w.s. burroughs.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
What the **** is a meme? I tried to read the wiki article, but got no where.
think of darwinism and how those subscribers to that belief system march in lockstep off of a cliff, chanting the same mantra in three part harmony. here is one definition. memes: an information pattern, held in an individual's memory which is capable of being copied to another individual's memory.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
its you're own fault, you should have known better than beam down here in the first place. Oh btw, Scotty says your SOL, transportor is down and the shuttlecraft are up on cinder blocks after Sulu went for a joyride. You're stuck here...
Yeah....Sulu went for a joyride alright! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-me8KUtXIWo)[/b] :rofl
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yeah....Sulu went for a joyride alright! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-me8KUtXIWo) :rofl [/B]
:rofl :cry :rofl poor Tim...
-
Next thing you know someone will be insisting humans are descended from apes.
-
Originally posted by Halo
Next thing you know someone will be insisting humans are descended from apes.
What? you think they are not?
Then please explain this...
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1173328255_chimpanze_02.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1173328274_george_w_bush.jpg)
The resemblance is uncany
-
Wikipedia is good to read on those boring afternoons, just search something of semi importance to me, then just keep clicking links.
The Triebflugel was a funny edit though:aok
-
Reality is a commodity that is for sale. Stephen Colbert trippled the elephant population of Asia.
-
Originally posted by Halo
Next thing you know someone will be insisting humans are descended from apes.
Yep, and a quick trip to Wal Mart will show you that many humans haven't been down out of the trees all that long. That very morning in some cases.
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tedrbr/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/caveman_photo.jpg)
-
:lol Reality is a locked article on Wikipedia now and the talk session is dominated about why there's no spot on "reality is a commodity". In short, wikipedia lovers hate Stephen Colbert and I LolZ!
-
Originally posted by Booz
All you ever need to know:
http://www.conservapedia.com/
This is the one they made because one of their complaints is wikipedia uses english spelling, not american spelling so therefore wikipedia is anti-american right?
Tronsky
-
Fear not, Uncyclopedia (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) has almost everything you'll ever need to know. :)
-
Usual comedy (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biased_sample) gold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research) I see.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
:lol Reality is a locked article on Wikipedia now and the talk session is dominated about why there's no spot on "reality is a commodity". In short, wikipedia lovers hate Stephen Colbert and I LolZ!
Actually, I was one of the blocking admins in the whole User:Stephencolbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stephencolbert) drama. We don't hate him, in fact, we really like him.
But sometimes he makes us sad.
(http://hallert.net/images/sadbird.JPG)
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
This is the one they made because one of their complaints is wikipedia uses english spelling, not american spelling so therefore wikipedia is anti-american right?
Tronsky
"If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"
- Ma Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa 1920)
-
:rofl Chairboy, make it a section and make everyone happy. As Stephen Colbert might say, "If you don't do it, you're supporting terrorism!"
-
Chairboy's the loser who edited Deb's little piece.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Chairboy's the loser who edited Deb's little piece.
I'm the whatnow that whatted whos what what?
-
Nevermind, I don't know Wiki lingo. It seems it was reverted back to the last edit, which you had done. You didn't do the editing.
-
I think that was a valid post regarding the triebflugal in popular culture, I demand you put it back Chairboy!
And I also got a lol out of your sig, Chairboy:aok
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
So all books and magazines are WITHOUT QUESTION the "authority"? Got it marked down here, thanks.
Wow, how did you get that absurd idea from what I wrote? Its all about credibility and Wiki has very limited credibility. It only takes one zipcode intardnet reject SNERT to screw up an otherwise credible article. Who knows how long it will take to be found and corrected.
Read this Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia) and you can better understand why information found on Wiki cannot be trusted to be 100% accurate.
I'll quote a little for the link impared:
"Wikipedia's philosophy is that unmoderated collaboration among well-meaning, informed editors will gradually improve the encyclopedia in its breadth, depth and accuracy, and that, given enough time, the truth will win out and even subtle errors will be caught and corrected."
"... well meaning, informed editors will gradually improve ..." - uh huh, what happy, clappy reality are they living in?
"... given enough time, the truth will win out ..." - news flash, OJ and Michael Jackson were found not guilty, therefore, the truth does not always win out.
Wiki may be a good starting point, but to cite it as your only source, you lose credibility.
-
Coshy, of course it can't be relied on to be 100% accurate. Neither can Brittanica, Scientific American, or any newspaper or textbook you could pick.
A scientific study done comparing Wikipedia with Encyclopedia Brittanica found the two were very similar in accuracy. Brittanica had a very slight edge on # of errors per article, and Wikipedia edged out Brittanica in depth of coverage.
Also, studies have shown that statistically, wrong information or vandalism has a shelf life measured in the minutes if not seconds. There are exceptions, of course, especially in subjects that are obscure, but arguing that "because someone could potentially vandalize it, it's useless" is like saying "because a car has the potential to crash, nobody should ever drive it".
Regarding the 'you can't cite Wikipedia as a primary source', well der, you're not supposed to cite an encyclopedia as a primary source, paper or electronic. It's a tool to get you started on learning something, or to get you a quick answer. But a primary source is always going to be something else.
-
Wikipedia is great to keep up with those 60's pop stars :)
I saw that commercial with the song "Catch the Wind" and did a Wikipedia search on Donovan. Its a good read - a lot of information there.
I wouldn't use it as a source, but one can easily kill an afternoon browsing it.
-
Put into perspective, wikipedia is more accurate than 99.9999% of the rest of the internet and 100% of the people posting here.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Put into perspective, wikipedia is more accurate than 99.9999% of the rest of the internet and 100% of the people posting here.
Especially on drm issues. :p
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Regarding the 'you can't cite Wikipedia as a primary source', well der, you're not supposed to cite an encyclopedia as a primary source, paper or electronic. It's a tool to get you started on learning something, or to get you a quick answer. But a primary source is always going to be something else.
exactly... back in the old days when we used to go to the library and actually use books to do research I remember papers I had to write for History, Goverment, and Lit and almost all of them had requirements to use 3 or more sources and list your sources...
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Put into perspective, wikipedia is more accurate than 99.9999% of the rest of the internet and 100% of the people posting here.
I highly doubt the former, and I your definately wrong on the latter. I'm always right. Just ask me.
-
I highly doubt the former, and I your definately wrong on the latter. I'm always right. Just ask me.
So says the dude with 21k+ posts....
Very Niiiiice.....
:rolleyes:
DoctorYo
PS: You people complaining over theological credentials is oxymoronic.... (who gives such credentials, the gods...)
-
"I don't think this incident exposes any inherent weakness in Wikipedia, but it does expose a weakness that we will be working to address,
:huh :rofl
-
If you think they have a big lib bias, go read the Wiki NRA entry.
Seems fair enough to me.
-
Here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association