Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I won't shed a tear - it's full of half-truths and shockingly badly written articles.
Wikipedia is probably the best thing on the internet.
I live on it
There is alot of decent information on there, and it's much more interesting than any normal encyclopedia.
possibly the second most, behind 'Poetry Free For All', an awful site to which no-one should ever go if they ever want to read decent stuff.
Encylopedia Britannica and a few others cos it's constantly being updated and stuff. Obviously people fuck around with it but it's still a good resource.
It wont die. Im surprised Google or Murdoch haven't bought it yet.
Where will I go to find useless information from?
"Sandy Ordonez claimed that Devouard's comment was taken out of context and Wikipedia will not be closing any time soon."
"claimed" isn't the operative word there. She did claim.
Besides, if Wikipedia does start eventually run out of money, does anyone really suppose there won't be some Google like entity just waiting with drool, a huge stiffy and a cheque for one gazillion dollars?
alot of the articles are pretty goo,d and comprehensive. i like the mild sense of subjectivity you get from reading any given article.
and it's really helpful for finding out about...stuff.
Ha! That's great. They wouldn't expect that.
Being a jackass about it makes your being wrong even more grating.
I challenge you to a duel.
In what way am I wrong? I thought it was interesting it, so I posted a link. But I do not deny being a "jackass".
It's not full of half truths. And badly-written articles are ruthlessly massacred by the appropriate authorities as soon as they can be found.
Now... I demand satisfaction! Are you a man or are you a coward?!
I... am a COWARD!
I don't like Wikipedia. It may have the odd useful nugget, but on the whole it's heinously pedantic and boring thanks to the nazi moderators. I stand by my slating, it's just a resource for lazy students on essay deadline day.
Should an encyclopedia be slap-dash and entertaining?
Help me to help you!
No, but wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia. I wouldn't cite it as a resource.
You wouldn't cite an article without sources as a resource. Proper Wikipedia articles about proper things are expected to have the sources cited included.
Which makes it different to and better than a traditional encyclopedia.
At the original time of posting, it didn't occur to me that the internet if full of tedious pedants, necessitating qualification of everything I say, so I'm just going to say that I dislike Wikipedia for reasons that may or may not be valid, and the article I linked is interesting, if true.
Now that's an interesting attitude.
What makes you so special that I shouldn't be able to judge your attitude to Wikipedia questionable and counter with my own view of the place?
Furthermore, do you honestly believe that it's acceptable in a discussion forum to just shut a thread of conversation down by saying something to the effect that you can't be bothered to qualify a statement merely because someone is asking too many questions about it?
To be perfectly honest, I would prefer to be labelled a tedious pedant and be thorough than go through life making retarded statements without qualification and getting shirty when people question why I've made them.
P.S. Is this you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin
I'm not getting shirty. You're getting shrity.
You called me a tedious pedant. Yes, I'm getting shirty.
No, I'm not Stalin. Is this you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_van_halen
Well, see I asked if you were Stalin because of your apparent policy of dismissing those who disagree with you.
I can only assume you're riffing on my bit because I... shred a lot.
Really? I'm surprised you didn't invoke Hitler.
Hitler never had that policy, n00b.
Yes he did, he "dismissed" those who "disagreed" with him.
But not to a degree siginificant enough to warrant usage when there are so many better candidates on offer. Hitler tended to listen to and rely on the advice of his confidants. Stalin had his sent to die in Siberia. There's no contest.
Cats have tongues, but if I want to make a crack about your tongue, I'll invoke an anteater or some shit, savvy?
But then, this is a digression: You were about to explain why you wouldn't deem a given article on Wikipedia with many sources cited attesting to its veracity as useful.
SOMETIMES relied on the advice of his confidants...
not so much after summer 44
Well, the man was under a lot of pressure.
"You were about to explain why you wouldn't deem a given article on Wikipedia with many sources cited attesting to its veracity as useful."
I never made this claim.
My objection to Wikipedia is it doesn't know what it is. If it is an encyclopaedia, as its moderators seem to think it is, then it shouldn't contain the degree of subjectivity that it does. If it isn't, its moderators should should stop being so pedantic. So I guess my beef is with the moderators.
i call Godwin's law
^^ to Wiggles
the second one.
but that inquirer article leaves a lot to be desired too.
Doye. It's an Inquirer article.
The people who contribute to articles do it for the sheer joy involved
All my homework comes off of there!
I dislike many other wikipedians...
quite a bit (the DiS page is on my watchlist!) but i don't interact with other editors much. they scare me.
me reverting stuff...
it would be interesting to see how much student grades go down...
The article sounded semi-believable until it made a stupid comment/pun about the function of wikipedia:
"Reflecting the consistency of that organ of knowledge, it seems that Devouard's comments have been hastily deleted and replaced by another spokesWikipedia denying that it was true."
let wikipedia take them over, and end up looking at some totally stupid shit?
I was just looking at a list of famous dogs.
It was divided into two sections; Dogs famous in their own right and Dogs owned by famous people.
This has not enriched my evening.
then student grades won't go down. They don't count Wikipedia as a legit source to citate. And if you do, you get poor marks.
but its still very valuable both as an overview of an issue and as a collection of different sources, many of which can be cited.
i enjoy having ha;f troofs to think about. let's face it, there is plenty of less believable media
now with added 'gentle expert oversight'