[design219]

Threat Level - Wired Blogs

This is too much fun. IP addresses are being tracked to see who is whitewashing wikipedia entries.

[Peter]

this could be hilarious...

[Kevin]

And people wonder why I don't like Wikipedia used to "prove" something.

It's the Enquirer of the Encyclopedias.

[rickey939]

Michael Scott: "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information."

[macdude]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And people wonder why I don't like Wikipedia used to "prove" something.

It's the Enquirer of the Encyclopedias.

I don't think that's a fair statement. The Enquirer strives to stir up and create controversy; Wikipedia just has a problem with vandalism. Most of the pages are properly maintained, and the ones that get vandalized are usually cleaned up in a decent amount of time. One is the "criminal," one is the "victim."

[Kevin]

I've seen articles not get fixed for MONTHS.

[Kerrigan]

Wikipedia is normally cherished by college dropout internet junkies who don't know any better.

(Case in point: I know at least one such person will read this post and think, "I won't believe Kerrigan because he didn't post a Wikipedia link to prove his point" but will refrain from posting this because he or she at least has a slight sense of irony)

[macdude]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I've seen articles not get fixed for MONTHS.

Originally Posted by macdude 

usually

......

[besson3c]

Ensuring and maintaining the quality of the Wikipedia is a constant struggle, but it still remains at least as accurate as the major encyclopedias, and of course for more up-to-the-minute on dynamic issues and discoveries.

[gradient]

What an awesome site. Man...... do Apple employees seem to have time on their hands. LOL. Some very important posts. My fav would be 'Tinker Bell' off this page: Wikipedia scanner results ip1=17.255.232.0-254.255

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by macdude 

......

Depends on the article. If it's about a large company or popular person? Yes. Anything otherwise gets put off.

Believe me, I've ran into many times they were reluctant to change something even though many people were complaining about the falseness of the comments. (Even had proof to back up said assertions)

Wikipedia was fun back when it first started. Now people just write tons of personal opinions that have nothing to do with the facts. Usually written because they have a chip on their should about said subject.

Wikipedia CAN'T keep up with all the garbage that gets thrown at it. So MOST things that need edited, do not get so unless it gets TONS of hits.

[Peter]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I've seen articles not get fixed for MONTHS.

I ponder why you didn't fix them, if you were aware they were wrong

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Peter 

I ponder why you didn't fix them, if you were aware they were wrong

I've made changes my own only to have a "moderator" get pissy with me for changing things without discussing them first.

Thats why.

I also don't like editing work of what probably took a long time for someone to write. That leads to people disagreeing purely for egotistical reasons as well.

I'd rather go to the talk section and speak about why I think said author should change what was said.

Now don't get me wrong, more times than not people will change what is said when shown what they put down was wrong.

But when the OP is nowhere to be seen, and you try to get an "official" change approved by someone on their "staff" it's hard.

 

He hehehe I said staff

[Peter]

Read this on slashdot a while back. The problem with Wikipedia:

Too bad most of the administrators think they know more than you, simply because they read an article on the subject. The others are all to happy to demonstrate the Wikipedia caste system to you.

[Kevin]

[Super Mario]

There's a hippy at Apple wasting lots of work hours wiki-ing about Children of God cult.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by rickey939 

Michael Scott: "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone idiot in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information."

Fixeted.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ensuring and maintaining the quality of the Wikipedia is a constant struggle, but it still remains at least as accurate as the major encyclopedias, and of course for more up-to-the-minute on dynamic issues and discoveries.

AT LEAST AS ACCURATE??? LOL Not with the amount of opinions, and BS that supposedly unbiased kids load into it. Garbage in - Gospel out??

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

AT LEAST AS ACCURATE??? LOL Not with the amount of opinions, and BS that supposedly unbiased kids load into it. Garbage in - Gospel out??

NPR : Assessing Wikipedia's Accuracy a simple Google search would have turned up info about this study.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

NPR : Assessing Wikipedia's Accuracy a simple Google search would have turned up info about this study.

NPR.

But on the serious side, I've seen encyclopedia's that were inaccurate too. So you're probably right. That isn't saying much for Wikipedia though.

NO ONE is unbiased. Bias and such will creep into documents. It's human nature.

When such things enters the picture said context no longer because unbiased place for information.

[design219]

What's funny about Public Radio?

[besson3c]

BBC: BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia survives research test
Arstechnica: Experts rate Wikipedia's accuracy higher than non-experts
Globe and Mail: globeandmail.com: Technology

Slashdot and many others are reporting on this same study... Need more URLs before you read the story BadKosh?

[Super Mario]

There was a comparison of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica Online on BBC News recently. Wikipedia lost in terms of accuracy.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

There was a comparison of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica Online on BBC News recently. Wikipedia lost in terms of accuracy.

Not that AGAIN ANY Encyclopedia is unbiased or full of actual facts.

I've read some doozies in some.

As far as what is wrong with NPR.. NPR Sucks!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

There was a comparison of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica Online on BBC News recently. Wikipedia lost in terms of accuracy.

Just barely, if I recall.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

As far as what is wrong with NPR.. NPR Sucks!

Oh, Roger Rick says so. Well, that settles it.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Just barely, if I recall.

That was a small random sampling of articles. Anyway we look at it, it's embarrassing that the combined efforts of millions can't compare to a few hundred professionals.

[Super Mario]

Take a looky at the ingenius people working at some of the largest orgs

Waaahhhhmoud!!!!!

On the profile of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the tool indicates that a worker on the CIA network reportedly added the exclamation "Wahhhhhh!" before a section on the leader's plans for his presidency.

A warning on the profile of the anonymous editor reads: "You have recently vandalised a Wikipedia article, and you are now being asked to stop this type of behaviour."

How to be legally retarded

The site also indicates that a computer owned by the US Democratic Party was used to make changes to the site of right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

The changes brand Mr Limbaugh as "idiotic," a "racist", and a "bigot". An entry about his audience now reads: "Most of them are legally retarded."

The IP address is registered in the name of the Democratic National Headquarters.

From drinking the blood of Jesus to whitewashing the blood of protestants

The site also indicates that Vatican computers were used to remove content from a page about the leader of the Irish republican party Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams.

The edit removed links to newspaper stories written in 2006 that alleged that Mr Adams' fingerprints and handprints were found on a car used during a double murder in 1971.

The section, titled "Fresh murder question raised" is no longer available through the online encyclopaedia.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

a computer owned by the US Democratic Party was used to make changes to the site of right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

That pales to what the Republicans did to spoil Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince!

This stuff if too funny.

I wonder when the political comedians will get ahold of this stuff?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by design219 

Oh, Roger Rick says so. Well, that settles it.

So attack the person instead of what is being said? He didn't lie in that article.

Reading some of those things makes me realize why some of the people believe in what they do.

NPR either needs to drop it's funding, or stop the shilling.

I want my tax dollars to go to a neutral based NPR. Not one that is one sided and makes up crap. After all, I pay their wages.

[Randman]

1) I'm surprised that this didn't happen sooner.

2) I'm surprised that people are surprised by this.

[Kevin]

It's been happening for a long time now. It's just easier to see it at a grand scale.

The only thing Wikipedia is decent at is non-controversial topics. And even then there are two jerkoffs arguing about the content.

"No bananas from that part of the world are MUCH better than the part you stated in your article!"

I guess Wikipedia is for those that want to re-write the history. No matter what "side" you are on.

urbandictionary.org has more cred.

If I want to look up say a discography by someone, I MIGHT go to Wikipedia for it. But anything more serious than that? Naw.

[Super Mario]

.....................

Originally Posted by Kevin 

"No bananas from that part of the world are MUCH better than the part you stated in your article!"

"You DON'T KNOW what you're talking about! I work at The Banana Company"

"LOL I'm the CEO of Bananas International! It's my job to know this better than anyone else!"

"I...I was born eating bananas! I handle 200 rack servers of bananas running on Linux"

"What are you smoking? I invented bananas! Every kind."

"You're....you're a NAZI!!!!!!!!"

[Kevin]

You've seen these arguments I take it.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You've seen these arguments I take it.

I'm a MacNNer.

[Kevin]

I was referring to wikipedia, but yeah, wikipedia and MacNN, about the same thing.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

It's been happening for a long time now. It's just easier to see it at a grand scale.

The only thing Wikipedia is decent at is non-controversial topics. And even then there are two jerkoffs arguing about the content.

"No bananas from that part of the world are MUCH better than the part you stated in your article!"

I guess Wikipedia is for those that want to re-write the history. No matter what "side" you are on.

urbandictionary.org has more cred.

If I want to look up say a discography by someone, I MIGHT go to Wikipedia for it. But anything more serious than that? Naw.

If you're looking to an encyclopedia to give you your opinion, I'm not sure quality is really your primary concern anyway.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you're looking to an encyclopedia to give you your opinion, I'm not sure quality is really your primary concern anyway.

Well put.

[design219]

Does anybody think with will comeback on any of these organizations? This story is finally making the mainstream press today.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you're looking to an encyclopedia to give you your opinion, I'm not sure quality is really your primary concern anyway.

Um where did I say I was looking for an opinion? I didn't.

My point was Wikipedia gave opinions instead of sticking with the facts.

The first I don't want, the latter I do.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well put.

Wow..were you just agreeing with him cause he said something that attempted to belittle me?

Did you even read what I said?

Tell us besson. How was that well put? What exactly did he say, In response to my post that made it well put? Of course wait.. you couldn't be reading my posts. You have me on ignore remember?



So either

A. You didn't read my post, (Cause you said you put me on ignore, like 10xs this week..) and were just agreeing with him cause it was a dig at me,

or

B. Still read my post after claiming I was on ignore.

I am voting A. Because if you'd have read my post you'd realize that nowhere did I say I was looking for opinions. That my rant was exactly the opposite.

I will quote myself again

Wikipedia was fun back when it first started. Now people just write tons of personal opinions that have nothing to do with the facts. Usually written because they have a chip on their should about said subject.



Welcome to Reading Is Fundamental

[besson3c]

So, all of these people that claim to know that Wikipedia is based on opinion and not fact, I guess we can deduce that these people:

1) Personally have found some information they know is false based on their own personal expertise, and have made the assumption that:

a) all of the Wikipedia must therefore be false
b) this information is set in stone and will not be changed within the Wikipedia

2) Do not have expertise in a given area, but are very confident with their gut feeling about something. Perhaps you name is "Stephen Colbert".

3) Have read somewhere else that the Wikipedia is based on opinion, and have used this to inform your own opinion that Wikipedia is based on opinion... hmmm... how circular!


People, it's really quite simple. If you are looking for the truth, no single source has it. It is always best to cross-reference the informationn you are seeking. It doesn't matter whether you are talking about the WIkipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica, there are absolutely no guarantees that what is provided is factually correct.

I mean, comon, isn't this advice pretty obvious?

That being said, the studies do indicate that the Wikipedia is about as accurate as anything else. While this does not make this idea factual, how about countering this with something more substantive rather than your gut feelings? I don't care about your gut feelings, I'm well aware of the fact that some people here have some ill-informed ideas in their head (I probably do too), you don't need to share yours. You are welcome to continue to think that, say, orange juice makes people gay, but maybe you should keep these sorts of gut feelings to yourself?

[besson3c]

Also, the Wikipedia is a wonderful source for cross-referencing information against that is far more accessible to many than an encyclopedia set. Moreover, like has been stated, the Wikipedia has the luxury of being able to be far more dynamic with its provision of information and choice of subject matter.

I really like the Wikipedia. I think it provides a spectacular service.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, all of these people that claim to know that Wikipedia is based on opinion and not fact, I guess we can deduce that these people:

No one in this thread ever said such a thing.

1) Personally have found some information they know is false based on their own personal expertise, and have made the assumption that:

No, that I know from facts. Not personal experience.

a) all of the Wikipedia must therefore be false

No one ever said that either.

b) this information is set in stone and will not be changed within the Wikipedia

Nor that

2) Do not have expertise in a given area, but are very confident with their gut feeling about something. Perhaps you name is "Stephen Colbert".

3) Have read somewhere else that the Wikipedia is based on opinion, and have used this to inform your own opinion that Wikipedia is based on opinion... hmmm... how circular!

Non of that has happened either.

People, it's really quite simple. If you are looking for the truth, no single source has it. It is always best to cross-reference the informationn you are seeking. It doesn't matter whether you are talking about the WIkipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica, there are absolutely no guarantees that what is provided is factually correct.

This I agree with. What people are saying is Wikipedia isn't a valid source of information for HEATED topics.

That being said, the studies do indicate that the Wikipedia is about as accurate as anything else.

Yes, and there are studies that show the opposite. And even if this above were true, it shows the sad state of affairs those in charge of such things are.

While this does not make this idea factual, how about countering this with something more substantive rather than your gut feelings? I don't care about your gut feelings, I'm well aware of the fact that some people here have some ill-informed ideas in their head (I probably do too), you don't need to share yours. You are welcome to continue to think that, say, orange juice makes people gay, but maybe you should keep these sorts of gut feelings to yourself?

You are the only one that made this about gut feelings. Not I. Or anyone else in this thread as far as I have seen.

[ghporter]

I certainly don't know what all the fuss about NPR news is-it's far more balanced and far less tabloid than ANY commercial "news"source. When they report on something, their reporter has seen it-not made it up like Washington Post writers, not "heard it" like Fox News, and not spun it like the "big three" broadcast networks' "news" shows.

In any case, Wikipedia is useful-if not for fully factual, broadly covered knowledge articles, at least for reviewing basic facts about some subjects. Physics, mechanics, electronics, medical (the coverage of anatomy, biomechanics, pathology, and pharmacology in particular) are really quite well handled. Otherwise, they disambiguate very well, so if I search for something and don't have it spelled right, I get a correct spelling from Wiki pretty quickly.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I certainly don't know what all the fuss about NPR news is-it's far more balanced and far less tabloid than ANY commercial "news"source. When they report on something, their reporter has seen it-not made it up like Washington Post writers, not "heard it" like Fox News, and not spun it like the "big three" broadcast networks' "news" shows.

Did you read the article I posted above? Those things he cited where spun, unbalanced, and pretty darn intolerant. As far as the other three, I don't care. My tax dollars aren't going to them.

In any case, Wikipedia is useful-if not for fully factual, broadly covered knowledge articles, at least for reviewing basic facts about some subjects. Physics, mechanics, electronics, medical (the coverage of anatomy, biomechanics, pathology, and pharmacology in particular) are really quite well handled. Otherwise, they disambiguate very well, so if I search for something and don't have it spelled right, I get a correct spelling from Wiki pretty quickly.

I agree with that assement of Wikipedia.

BTW I don't HATE Wikipedia. I get caught in wiki loops all the time.

I've just been in too many discussions where people use opinion based wiki article as proof to their ridiculous assertions.

I've even seen cases where said article was edited to say a certain thing MINUTES before said post was made about it!



I love however looking up nostalgia, and old rock and rock memorabilia.

You don't learn a lot about corporations on there cause Wiki pretty much keeps a tight lid on what gets posted in those.

The ones that really bother me are the ones no one is allowed to edit.. esp ones that have some highly biased material on them.

It's almost as if someone cleverly found a way to write history the way they want to.

If something is repeated enough, it becomes the truth. Cause you know, Columbus discovered America.

[ghporter]

[QUOTE=Kevin;3459457]Did you read the article I posted above? Those things he cited where spun, unbalanced, and pretty darn intolerant. As far as the other three, I don't care. My tax dollars aren't going to them.[quote]The "NPR Sucks" article? One critical function NPR has is to report what the big news agencies don't. Mr. Bush IS indeed no megabrain. There IS evidence that "Traditional Values Coalition" had something to do with anthrax hoax letters. The "major news agencies" in the U.S. act like every Palestinian is a terrorist (and get help from some pretty extreme Jewish organizations in doing this) so it's important to see that there are people among the stereotypes everyone else reports on. Justice Scalia turns his back on over 200 years of Supreme Court tradition of NOT publicly stating any justice's opinion about the "nature" of the Constitution (living/static), which by the way Nina Totenberg actually mentioned in her reports about this issue. Most of the "NPR Sucks" "citations" are about EDITORIAL or ENTERTAINMENT pieces, not the way NPR reports real news. You'll also note that there is ZERO mention of Ann Garrels' reporting from Baghdad during the invasion of Iraq, no mention of the scathing and absolutely essential reporting of the FEMA foulups after Katrina and Rita, no mention of the well researched reporting on the Supreme Court's rulings about eminent domain.

If you want "infotainment," go to one of the big networks or Fox. If you want news that isn't reported by anyone else, go to NPR. If you want to really understand what's going on in the world, read and watch ALL OF IT and them THINK ABOUT IT FOR YOURSELF.

[Kevin]

If you want to really understand what's going on in the world, read and watch ALL OF IT and them THINK ABOUT IT FOR YOURSELF.

I guess I can agree to this part of your post.

But reading here

About NPR

It simply doesn't jive. And their "Each NPR Member Station serves local listeners with a distinctive combination of national and local programming."

Who controls what is said during the local programming? The member stations?

Again, if it wasn't for my money going to them, I'd not care.

And there are tons more negative look at the right, and a positive spin on leftist thinking with the program as a whole. This shouldn't be the case.

If they are going to do a negative "truth" about the right, they need to follow up with a negative "truth" about the left. Keep it neutral. This simply doesn't happen.

And I am a fan of listening to NPR. Only for the thing above for which we did agree on.

The ONE thing I like about South Park is, they make fun of the left and right. They are equal opportunity offenders.

NPR is not. NPR could take a lesson from South Park. I'd rather my funds that go to NPR go to south park instead.I wonder how I could get that done...