|
So a study developed and implemented by wikipedia.org found wikipedia to be the bee's knees.
Wow. Huge surprise, that.
I don't know how many details in wikipedia I have personally found that were incorrect, but it's lots.
Very recently, in a discussion in this very Lounge, maxx was continually quoting wikipedia about the BBC Micro, saying things like it was the first commercial home microcomputer (utter bollocks; it was closer to the 21st), and that BBC BASIC was the first BASIC that used subroutines (equally utter bollocks).
Wikipedia is all about ego. Every contributor is unpaid, and contributes largely for the ego boost.
That's fine, if:
- You don't have any conflicting egos (and OH, BOY! do you get conflicting egos in wikipedia).
- Ego-based inaccuracies are corrected, which, in the case of topics with fewer experts actually reading the pages and confirming their content (like the BBC Micro pages) just doesn't happen.
How much do you want to bet that the criteria for wikipedia.org's article selection was based on the number of experts contributing to the articles?
I imagine that there are fashionable-science pages and movie-star pages that are even better than the Britannica offers, but the accuracy of all the other information matters, too!
Very notable, however, is the fact that, even when confronted with the huge number of inaccuracies in wikipedia, people still sing its praises, saying that its the most accurate resource (e.g. even after everything maxx quoted was proven to be inaccurate, he still posted a hundred words declaring that wikipedia is the perfect resource).
Everyone needs to step back from the great idea of letting everyone contribute their knowledge, and turn in the direction that shows that knowledge is only a minor part of what people will always contribute, if given free rein -- the brown, stinky pile is a lot higher than the pile of knowledge.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Very notable, however, is the fact that, even when confronted with the huge number of inaccuracies in wikipedia, people still sing its praises, saying that its the most accurate resource
Mandatory clickety[^]
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Damn, when I grew up Britannica was THE reference used in the schools. My kids sated their curiosity with Encarta, what do they use these days then if Wikipedia is such a flaky source.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
The stone tablet version?
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: I imagine that there are fashionable-science pages and movie-star pages that are even better than the Britannica offers, but the accuracy of all the other information matters, too! You should always check your facts with other sources as well, but that goes for practically ANY source.
How accurate is any printed encyclopedia after a few years? Probably not as accurate as any online source
The problem with a lot of sources is that they don't offer half as much information as Wikipedia though.
That's why I prefer Wikipedia over anything else. It's easy to find, easy to use and in most cases accurate enough.
Mark_Wallace wrote: people still sing its praises, saying that its the most accurate resource What do these people use Wikipedia for?
It's probably not accurate enough for scientific purposes.
But I think most people just use it to look up a quick fact, or get acquainted with some topic, in which case it's fine.
I think it should be praised as the most accessible source.
Which is exactly why I use it. Quick lookup, I don't have to leave the house and I have a satisfying answer within minutes (or even seconds!)
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I think it should be praised as the most accessible source.
Which is exactly why I use it. Quick lookup, I don't have to leave the house and I have a satisfying answer within minutes (or even seconds!) Yup.
It doesn't matter that it's probably wrong.
QED
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
And provided that Dalek Dave hasn't been editing the page...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
From what I heard he's to busy hitting on your wife
What's he doing anyway, haven't seen mr. millionth lounge post in months...
|
|
|
|
|
She'd deck him, arthritis or not!
I once saw her drive a stiletto through a car door... Which was lucky, as she was aiming at the guy's Gentlemen's Vegetables...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Of course not. 42 is the answer!
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
My sister-in-law is looking to find a roommate in Amsterdam. She just got a new job there and needs to settle in.
Anyone in the same situation or know of someone needing a roomie?
(And, yay, I don't have to go to Paris anymore for visits! )
|
|
|
|
|
There are whole websites dedicated to that. Mostly used by students though.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but it's always better to find a "friend of a friend" rather than a stranger, if possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depends, is she hot?
Seriously though, I live on the other side of the country. If she's ever in Dirksland (which is never ) she's welcome to stay
|
|
|
|
|
Of course she is. I chose my in-laws very carefully.
This is her[^]
|
|
|
|
|
So she's cute and I get to French kiss her too?
Let me rent an apartment in Amsterdam...
|
|
|
|
|
:p
I, of course, married the hotter sister.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure she'll visit us in Amsterdam...
|
|
|
|
|
GenJerDan wrote: I, of course, married the hotter sister.
How do you know it?
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
|
|
|
|
|
Since I intend to stay married, I cannot answer.
|
|
|
|
|
on FarceBook, from Dalek Dave.
Only trouble is, it's not on my Farcebook account - it's on Herself's, and she has no idea who he is at all.
So it look like his "look popular" election drive involves trying to "friend" everybody he can think of...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Does FB have a "report as spam" button?
I not, just post "I suspect him to be a terrorist" in a normal chatty area.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Oooo! Tempting....
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
How about a few well-placed comments about him sending you pictures of his private member's bill? Whilst wearing paisley pyjamas.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|