WikiPrank Gone WikiWrong

[sbsp13668]

[COLOR=Magenta][FONT=Comic Sans MS]Woah... I guess I shoudln't use Wikipedia that often then. I feel bad for those two guys that would so totally suck! By the way I just wanted to say this but my homeroom teacher's name is Mrs.Brandt so that's kind of interesting! ^.^ :catgirl: [/FONT] [/COLOR]

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Mnemolth']Actually no. This is why people are so skeptical of its reliability. But it works out quite well. Wikipedia may lock pages but it is very, very rare. Right now, I'm able to edit the Intelligent Design article.[/quote]

[color=green]My mistake. The Bush article is locked, and will likely remain so.

On the subject of locked pages on a wiki... this should be done more often, especially on higher traffic sites like Wikipedia that take the bulk of abuse. I have a question though - it may just be me, but has anyone actually seen a relatively major page vandalized?[/color]

[Saya]

I use Wikipedia for casual use, school papers, and other such things - it is a highly useful tool and many highly skilled professions [b]do[/b] consider it a valuable source of information. Like[b] all[/b] information you need to take it with a grain of salt, look elsewhere and tease out what you can from various sources.

That being said Wikipedia is downright amazing in its scope and depth. It should be noted for work related things that Wikipedia is also very useful and considered to be quite reliable.

Is it a problem that anyone can upload anything? Certainly, of course you're going to find information that is utter crap... it happens with everything. I bet we're all familiar with how many versions of Encarta there is, or for that matter, how many times they've corrected information that they had. Nothing is perfect, but Wikipedia is close.

Why is Wikipedia so close to being just damn perfect if unlike actual Encyclopedias it isn't obtaining its information from solely valid sources? Because there are many people skilled in various fields - Wikipedia represents the culmination of shared knowledge, be it useful or utter bull (but Wikipedia's staff does try to root out the bad from the good, and in my mind they succeed).

[quote name='Sage Kaley']I use wiki a lot, mostly because it tends to have hard to find information. From what I've seen it's more accurate than not. Actually I've been allowed to use it on college papers; my writing teacher told us it's accepted here and showed us how to cite it. I mean, I've always known that since anyone can edit it, I should be wary but it doesn't bother me too much. I know it could be wrong but it's usually pretty right, at the least. Fun way to waste time too.[/quote]I could have said it better... and for the same reasons it doesn't bother you, it doesn't bother me too much either. That some people suddenly dislike Wikipedia based on an incident (or more than one similar incident for that matter), goes to show you that people have some odd expectations in this world.

For encyclopedic knowledge, Wikipedia is just simply that good.[quote name='Chabichou']I've always felt uneasy about how anyone can post anything on the site though. My brother is obsessed with politics, and he's even submitted some articles to the site, but he has really biased views, so I hope he made sure that his articles were completely objective.[/quote]Does mistakes happen where an article breaks through said preventions (the staff reviewing the articles prior to accepting them), certainly. But I think the Wikipedia staff is pretty good with handling such things. It's actually quite refreshing to know not [i]everything[/i] gets in, and if it did? Then Wikipedia would still be an excellent source for such knowledge.

Things need to be taken for what they are, not what they ought to be (unless the flaws they posses are overwhelming). For instance Wikipedia is a community encyclopedia... likewise it has many benefits other encyclopedias only dream of possessing, and yet there are some areas in which it is weak (communal knowledge is always weaker than centralized knowledge and yet it is more plentiful and easier to access).[quote name='Lore']I don't think we really need to add the prefix "wiki" to everything, do we? I mean, come on. This isn't Digimon. [/quote]Funny you should say that. Just stumbled upon a Guild Wars Wiki-type site... at first I was turned off by the name, but seeing the wealth of information there I've got to admit it's pretty good (by the way Guild Wars is a massive multiplayer game).

Overall I think some of these new Wiki sites are pretty cool (they use the same open source "method" for posting entries as does Wikipedia). As for the name itself? I think it's cute.[quote name='Raiyuu] The system they have now works 99% of the time. They have admins (not hired, I believe, but comprised of volunteers not unlike the Mod team here) who read all the newly submitted articles and edits, checking them out for clarity and accuracy. I don't think this one isolated incident should be shaking anyone's foundations.[/quote]I second that, as I feel that it is extremely important to point out - plus I think they do an excellent job, and under the circumstances, the outcome has been an excellent system.[quote=Mnemolth]But then you shouldn't accept everything you read in the library or see on TV either. Just because it is in a book doesn't make it true. Wikipedia is no more or less reliable.[/quote]That's my point summed up in a nut shell.[quote=sbsp13668']Woah... I guess I shoudln't use Wikipedia that often then. I feel bad for those two guys that would so totally suck![/quote]What was your reason for that exactly? I must have been misreading all of the posts up till now: there is absolutely nothing wrong with the system except the innate flaws of the [i]type[/i] of system it is. Just as you are capable of making spelling mistakes, so too is Wikipedia capable of possessing incorrect knowledge, for its knowledge is knowledge from individuals (submitted by individuals like you or me).

I fail to see how this discredits Wikipedia as a whole... so why on earth would you say you wouldn't use it that often? I would certainly respect your opinion should one be given, but unless I've misread your short post, I fail to see any possible reason for your decision.

[Roxie Faye]

[color=#9933ff]I still like Wikipedia a lot, and will continue to use them, simply because they will have information on obscure topics that I can't find anywhere else.

I would also like to save myself the trouble, and issue this statement: I totally agree with persocomblues, and the people who have posted with similar attitudes.

That said, I went to the website provided by someone, wikipedia-watch.org or whatever it was, and found a bunch of idiots residing in the lovely city of San Antonio (it makes me sad because someone I know *cough* lives there - I can't believe there are idiots running around in his city). Most of their claims are based on a wiki article about someone on their staff. The article about this person was incorrect and apparently they took offense to it and stuff, and well, you can read about it on the website.

Personally, I think they really are a bunch of idiots, upset that they got made fun of on Wiki. Is it fun to have false information printed about you? No. But seriously, get a life, not make a website about how Wikipedia has "wronged you," or how it's a "terrible resource." It took him forever to get his article removed, but in my opinion, he made such a big deal out of it that of course no one is going to cooperate with him.

I almost sent them an e-mail telling them their site was stupid and why, but I realized I had better things to do with my time.

~Roxie

P.S.: Sara: adding the prefix wiki is fun, and it makes me laugh, so I will continue to use it where I want to. =) Your brand of cynicism in which you continually look down on people because you're older than them is also highly annoying.[/color]