Interesting facts about Wikipedia
 

Here's an article that shows the exact demographic of Wikipedia's editors. http://bostonreview.net/BR34.6/morozov.php

thanks, it's good to know...

I have been reading a lot about this wikipedia boom and every time its amazing to learn how connection and collaboration from individuals generate interesting projects like this, thanks Gene for the link

Wikipedia is at the forefront of destroying human knowledge. It always seems like an easy stop to find out the basics on something I do not know about.

However, anything I do know about, I know the Wikipedia entry is comedically corrupt and flat out wrong. For example, just one lonely cat lady pretty much decimated all the gothic entries on the whole system.

Here's another interesting article about wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

Wait, you mean the wikipedia editors are GFYers???

good to know :)

Yes, filling Wiki up with information on Goth would be destroying human knowledge....but it still has it's place I guess.


Most real "information" Wiki's are collaborated and include the sources. If you're reading a wiki with no sources or trash sources, it's like reading any other part of the Internet.

That's what makes wiki's different, they should include the sources for the research.


Thanks for the article $5.... btw, send me that damn banner.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

im a vampire i smoked a joint with hitler :):1orglaugh

YEs, specially if you're going to build a wikipedia page on a trend you own all the domain names on and trying to build buzz through wikipedia and Web 2.0 sites :) :winkwink: Good to see the biases and demographics of the editors you need to pass your stuff by

interesting read :thumbsup

Thanks, bro:thumbsup

Uhm, there are tons of goth articles on Wikipedia. They are just filled with tons of errors of both omission and commission. The information is laughably poor quality. I just use that as an example because the Wikipedia articles on the import and export of jade may be totally defective -- probably are totally defective -- but I'm not a professional level expert in that. And I happen to be aware that there is basically one person -- a loser cat lady from the Pacific NW -- who rides the RSS feeds from Wikipedia and deliberately messes with all of the entries in that category.

Here is another example of what is wrong with their sourcing system. They run a lot of articles on sorts of things which may not have a ton of online source material. For example, a friend of mine, who has the stomach to look at that destructive site, wanted the article on him to list where he went to school. There were LiveJournal entries written by people who hate him sourced on there, but he was not permitted to add where he went to grad school because, by Wikipedia's defective logic, the person the article is about could not possibly know enough about himself to know where he was educated. A supposedly disinterested third party with a fake name is a totally good source for info on his life though.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

What ever you do though don't type in google on google. The space time continuum will collapse.

Stupid nofollow....I used to get a ton of hits from that listing :)

It's a great site... I use to take #1 rank for a lot of models. Now all they have to do is list a page with nothing on it but a name and it takes first place weather it has information on it or not... A few more sites like them and everyone will be on the second and third page. Mind you I think it's a good site but they should keep their noses out of the adult stuff.

yeah its good to know

I hope by now the person created several fake accounts as well and has friends like you and social friend groups to support them, that could easily add to the articles.... same can be done with the goth articles, but simply create new ones.

Source wise, that would be why we want the source, a Live Journal entry about a guy may be valid - it is still only chatter, no different than this forum, it isn't really "the forefront of destroying human knowledge" ... to have it posted on Wiki.


The real knowledge of wiki's has powerful provable sources... not simply opinions.

Pretty much.

You are not notable enough for Wikipedia....

I've seen mistakes in the encyclopedia Britannica too, and I couldn't fix them in 5 seconds, fwiw

i guess nobody likes wikipedia...

Wikipedia is useful site,
It even lists famous people - that's right,
I found Karen O's biography on the site,
But I'm not famous enough to be on there,
This rhyme is tight.

In my experience, every single topic I have real knowledge of, where I have read the associated Wikipedia entry, the Wikipedia entry is not factual. I can think of zero exceptions. Feel free to point out a list of examples of topics on any living person or entity where the information is remotely accurate.

I have no Wikipedia account, so, when my friend asked me to help him more accurately crowd-source, I couldn't help him there. The idea that, if he got a bunch of fake profiles to enter information, he would improve the data quality on there does not inspire confidence in Wikipedia.

I have a job and can't spend the whole day correcting and reverting and re-reverting Wikipedia articles, but I know some less employed individuals who have put a lot of effort into trying to improve the accuracy on Wikipedia and it is apparently difficult.

There is no obvious person to appeal to when someone puts libel on Wikipedia, unless you really feel like starting a court case, and there is no real responsibility for what people say there. Much like dating sites with fake profiles, the brass of Wikipedia, in between spending their phat "donation" paychecks, can claim rogue editor or they can't control what users upload.

On a related note: this might solve wikipedia's money problems http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=939836 but it might also result in loss of credibility/viewed as a pact with the devil.....