Wikipedia

[marshalolson]

well, i bet you:

a. don't actually jump into tornados
b. didn't pioneer it either. its been around since my days in texarkana

[Professor]

The "Wikipedia is crap" people are usually a particular brand of retard that wouldn't know how to use a library if it crawled up their ass and shat a card catalog.

Yeah, that must be me. I have never done any research in my whole life and really dont even know how to read. Oh well, guess Wikipedia is my only option. I wonder if I can use it as a source in an appellate brief
I just hope that whatever I am looking for is one of the topics that people voted/commented on to make purposely incorrect. The idea that they dont try to stop that practice must not matter

[Garrett]

I just hope that whatever I am looking for is one of the topics that people voted/commented on to make purposely incorrect. The idea that they dont try to stop that practice must not matter

Yup, you are a retard. You don't actually have a fucking clue how Wikipedia works.

[Odin]

Anyhoo, my point about wikipedia is that right now if I wanted to, I could go on wikipedia and print slander about George bush having a gay tryst in Canada with a man named Nacho.

And until the masses deleted it, there would be an entry on his page detailing his gay tryst that never happened. Whereas I cannot do this with the encylopedia britannica.

Now, knowing how things get moderated, the edit would probably happen quickly with something that outlandish.

However what if the information added was not as outlandish and merely an intentional addition of slight facts to skew. Any different than the mistake in britannica..... no, but a whole lot faster access, view and modify.

For Example:

10:37, 1 November 2007 Faithlessthewonderboy (Talk | contribs) (113,259 bytes) (Undid revision 168482677 by Catthefelix (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 10:36, 1 November 2007 Catthefelix (Talk | contribs) (105 bytes) (←Replaced page with '<font size="9">''' ''THIS MAN IS A COMPLETE MUPPET, A CHIMP IN A SUIT COULD DO BETTER'' == '''<font/>') (undo)

Now this is only a minute, but for a whole minute the entry on his page was....

''THIS MAN IS A COMPLETE MUPPET, A CHIMP IN A SUIT COULD DO BETTER''

So yes, most of the time there is decent data, but it must be taken with a grain of salt as most things on the internet should.


edit - I forgot to print retarded generalizations.

Everyone who trusts wikipedia is a total douche moron and likes to feel up goats

[Professor]

Yup, you are a retard. You don't actually have a fucking clue how Wikipedia works.

Just curious.... Do you use the word "retard" constantly as a way to make you feel better about yourself?

[XtrPickels]

a friend of mine wrote some funny stuff about a rival college (small DIII school that no one cares about) and it was amazing how quickly it got edited.

[Alkasquawlik]

wiki is a moderately good starting point. read the article, then go directly to the cited sources and go from there. note: quoting wiki is the automatic death of a paper for my field.

[Spats]

So yes, most of the time there is decent data, but it must be taken with a grain of salt as most things on the internet should.

As opposed to the mainstream media, which is mostly controlled by five global corporations?*

They've got their own agenda, and it doesn't include any threat to their financial or political dominance from you. You need to take *all* sources with a grain of salt.

Even scholarly journals are not immune from politics.

*These five corporations own approximately the same percentage of media output in the U.S as the top 50 corporations did in 1983.

[Odin]

As opposed to the mainstream media,

heh, this is true....

Trust no one.

Including and especially yourself.

[Professor]

heh, this is true....

Trust no one.

Including and especially yourself.

But can I trust you that I shouldnt trust you or are you lying to me? I am very confused

[steve]

I will dissent and say that I am a big fan of wikipedia.

It is much more reliable as most other internet-based sources of knowledge, and has a passionate community that rigorously does everything it can to improve its reputation by keeping it accurate. Some of the more obscure articles there are very useful and you'd be hard-pressed to find serious errors.

That said, when an article is bad, it's usually obvious by the style of writing. And if you click on the discussion page and see a lot there, you can be reassured that those are people who monitor the article to keep it as accurate as possible.

A study (can't remember) from a couple of years ago showed that wikipedia has slightly more errors than EB on a per-article basis, but when you correct for article length, the incidence on wikipedia is MUCH lower because wiki's articles are typically much longer.

-steve

[flip]

Great starting point to treat as a glossary or get a feel for a subject. Should not be relied on to check specific facts.

Different tools for different needs, folks.

[truth]

well, i bet you:

a. don't actually jump into tornados
b. didn't pioneer it either. its been around since my days in texarkana

You're wrong on both counts. Ask the cab driver in Vegas that helped us form a band and invent the Ford Explorer rodeo en route from the amazing lights of Mandalay Bay to the Spearmint Rhino in a fungus induced rampage. We tried to flush the Monte Carlo down one of it's own toilets but got sidetracked. That's unfinished business that will be dealt with accordingly. The MAGIC trade show is no joke.

[jepilot]

the university of Vermont just sent out a big memo saying that it was not a valid source and could not be used in citations, however, when it comes to learning a lot of big picture background and general info quickly, it is one of the best/easiest ways.

Temple too, but ditto to the rest

[Garrett]

I'm fairly well acquainted with Wikipedia (I've edited a couple hundred articles and written a handful) and there is no way in hell I would cite it in any halfway serious paper. Of course, I wouldn't likely cite Britannica either. Memo or not, that is just asking for some professor/judge/peer to call you a JONG.

I could go on wikipedia and print slander about George bush having a gay tryst in Canada with a man named Nacho

Only if you've been a registered user for more than four days, a simple protection which keeps most of the trolls at bay. When something happens that really brings the trolls out, pages like that go into full protection where no one but admins can edit it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...tection_policy which uses GWB's page as an example of indefinite semi-protection.

Vandalizing pages and getting away with it is an art, but it really requires you to target pages that not many people give a shit about in the first place. The funniest pages on Wikipedia are the biographies of total farking nutjobs: Warring factions of cultish followers with even more screws loose upstairs do endless edit battle over crap sane people don't give a fuck about, like whose cock Ayn Rand didn't gobble.

See also: Where Wikipedia Trolls Congregate

[orange]

Cock Ring -- You know its NSFW