Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
No results found. Fail.
Is this the one that's supposed to be all contributed to by experts?
anyone with a google account can "write a Knol!"
which i assume is random has just informed me that there's already an article on constipation. thanks!
just like google video where it enterd a market where people just say 'youtube it' they have now enterd a market where people say 'wiki it' it's pretty much enterd a saturated market.
the same thing about google itself though. the search engine market when google popped up was dominated by yahoo! and there were loads of smaller ones, yet they won out there.
Don't underestimate the power of Google. And as useful as Wikipedia is, it's also ridiculously flawed. There's just been nothing to rival. With the marketing clout and brand power that Google have, I wouldn't write them off succeeding in any space
This puts me in mind a dispute I had with my housemate last night. My friend was of the opinion that 'fuck' stems from a medieval acronym (Fornication Under Consent of the King - obviously bollocks). I begged to differ and she suggested I might want to look it up on the internet, but not Wiki, because apparently it was unreliable.
I hate this because the whole point of Wikipedia is that, yes, it is editable by anyone in theory, but the reader actually has to do some work. Everything should be sourced - the sources are located at the end of the document. In addition, a large community of enthusiasts on millions of different subjects constantly argue over the veracity of every article. It is as reliable as an encyclopedia can be. In fact, it is the MOST reliable encyclopedia that has ever existed purely by virtue of how articles come to be in the first place.
If you find an article flawed then the framework is there for you to correct it your damn self, or ensure that someone else can.
saying that, i remember once reading the article about the Winter War between the USSR and Finland and spotted the phrase "and then they beat the shit out of the commies" in it. I left it there because it was funny.
You were right to do so. Morally right.
are some of the worst people on the internet huh
they removed that clive tyldesley is 'disliked by many for his boundless jingoism' from his page, that wasnt cool
i read some article about one of the guys who founded it who is now disillusioned with the whole thing and has started some alternative to it, an example of what he found so bad about it was that people were making alterations to factual things on his own page and then arguing that his account of them was wrong and he couldnt change them back
its main advantages over an irl encyclopedia is that it can be constantly changed and theres no size limit, im not sure that makes it 'more reliable' though
in a 'youre worst person on the internet' way, just wondering if thats why you said 'careful now...'
What makes it more reliable is that everything in it is subject to constant scrutiny by third parties from the entries themselves, to the identity and motivations of the author(s). Hell, you can probably learn more by reading the endless arguments behind the articles than the articles themselves.
In a normal encyclopedia, none of this holds. Everything is set in stone - right or wrong.
And I have contributed to Wiki. But only when I find something dodgy. I'm a nitpicker.
But these 'Wikipedians' are only verifying stuff by checking to see if there is anything online that says the same thing
So, if a factually incorrect piece of information is printed somewhere, it can quite easily find its way onto Wikipedia
If you tried putting an entry in for some made up band, chances are it'd get blocked, as there's no reference of that band anywhere else. That's the only way it works. If somebody else has said it elsewhere, it's fine to go in
Wikipedia is riddled with inaccuracies. How can it possibly not be?
Why do sources have to be online? And why would an online source be as a rule, less reliable than a printed source?
You're also ignoring the fightboard behind every article where people who are all as expert as each other do battle to ensure their facts are the most factual.
Such as academia etc
But (and I know this is a pitiful example), what about stuff like public figures, celebrities? Who's going to verify that information? Who's an 'expert' on that? If a newspaper or any printed medium prints something libelous, they either get sued or have to print a retraction/apology, and people are held responsible
What happens with Wikipedia? Nothing. It's a beautiful thing, allowing ANYBODY to edit this thing, but it's also quite dangerous, considering how many people take it as fact. There's no accountability
If you come across inaccurate information, what's to stop you editing it so that it's correct? There are also controls in place to stop malicious or spurious edits.
And if all else fails, Wikipedia isn't just some passive free-for-all - the editor is ultimately responsible for what appears on his site. You can sue him as you would any other person, as indeed, people have.
And none of this should happen anyway, since as I said before, you should be citing everything you write. When you don't, it's flagged as such.
Compare to actual encyclopedias or even any other print source. How many times have you seen an article in the Times flagged with "Warning, may be controversial" or "Warning, source for such-and-such not cited"?
Have you ever?
I thought FUCK was an acronym for Forced Unlawful Carnal Knowledge and derided for a legal term in the late 1800's?
the social network site from google, apparently it is one of the biggest in the world but ive never heard of it
No results found for richard hammond
Therefore he doesn't exist!
It was only launched today (I think)