[macintologist]

don't do that again. even with a warning

http://www.wikipedia.org (It might still be up like that)

[G4ME]

i thought felix looked different

[voodoo]

Damn not that pic again!!!

(and Wiki has been fixed)

[macintologist]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Damn not that pic again!!!

(and Wiki has been fixed)

It hasn't for me.

[Jaey]

--

Sure To Be Locked™

[Zimphire]

Più uno

[Millennium]

Take the image down. Keep the link if you want (with appropriate warnings: this is a ****** pic after all), but take the image out.

[Millennium]

The best thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can modify it. This is also, sad to say, the worst thing about Wikipedia: anyone can modify it.

Wikipedia wasn't owned, because it wasn't hacked; the ability for people to do this is inherent in Wikipedia's architecture, and is a deliberate feature. This is what happens when people abuse that feature.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The best thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can modify it. This is also, sad to say, the worst thing about Wikipedia: anyone can modify it.

It's an interesting read. But too many people rely on it as fact.

[turtle777]

Ok, so what did I miss ?

-t

[Kenneth]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Ok, so what did I miss ?

-t

Second that.

[Psychonaut]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Ok, so what did I miss ?

Originally posted by Millennium:
....this is a ****** pic after all...

Apparently, you missed parting with the contents of your stomach.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Ok, so what did I miss ?

If you really want to know, you can run an image search on that funny-looking term I used to describe the picture. However, I strongly urge you not to do this. The picture, sometimes called "hello.jpg" (its original filename), depicts an elderly man mooning the camera while manually stretching his rectum to about the size of a tennis ball.

The picture has been a favorite of pranksters for many years now. Usually it's a matter of mallinking, where someone will post a link which claims to go somewhere else, but actually goes to this picture or a page that features it prominently. There's even one version which bombs your computer with popups of it, while playing a sound file of someone shouting "Hey everybody! I'm looking at gay porn!"

The term I used, by the way, is another common name for both the picture and the man depicted. It comes from the original address of the site which hosted it, though that site was taken down about a year ago. It has been resurrected at a similar address.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If you really want to know, you can run an image search on that funny-looking term I used to describe the picture....

Thanks, Millennium.
I'm glad I missed that.

-t

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Millennium:
There's even one version which bombs your computer with popups of it, while playing a sound file of someone shouting "Hey everybody! I'm looking at gay porn!"

Haha. Haven't seen that one.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It's an interesting read. But too many people rely on it as fact.

It may very well be facts that are quoted, though. The problem is reliability. And in many cases, it can be a reliable source when the articles cite their sources. And in situations like this (being an internet forum where it doesn't really matter), most articles are just fine as far as being "reliable."

Here is an interesting article on the subject.

In other words, just because it is from Wikipedia doesn't mean it isn't reliable, it just means you might want to check out the sources they are using. It's not supposed to be full of opinions, and so the objectiveness makes it a better source than most other websites out there.

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally posted by Xeo:
It's not supposed to be full of opinions, and so the objectiveness makes it a better source than most other websites out there.

Unfortunately, it often is full of opinions. Both the George Walker Bush and John Kerry entries were locked several times over the last several months because contributers were using them as partisan political tools.

And it isn't limited to politics. Far too many entries on Wikipedia have opinion mixed in with fact without differentiating between the two.

I suppose the lesson here is you get what you pay for.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by BasketofPuppies:
Unfortunately, it often is full of opinions. Both the George Walker Bush and John Kerry entries were locked several times over the last several months because contributers were using them as partisan political tools.

And it isn't limited to politics. Far too many entries on Wikipedia have opinion mixed in with fact without differentiating between the two.

I suppose the lesson here is you get what you pay for.

Well like I said, it's still important to check out the sources they use, but it can be a good place to find the information. Verifying its legitimacy, if it is indeed legitimate, should be easy.