Why Wikipedia Sucks...

[Dr Hackenslash 25]

Thought you might enjoy the below exchange that I found.

 

Cockney Rhyming Slang - F**k

 

Should the cockney Rhyming Slang 'Donald Duck' be added? Gretnagod 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 

In my opinion, no, it is non-notable and unencyclopedic trivia. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 

But cockney rhyming slang is used throughout the Anglo-Saxon world, particularly Australia. And, considering you admit is is soley your opinion, don't you admit you were a bit hasty in reverting the edit? Gretnagod 03:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 

In fact, if you really want an adminship, surely you should try to culture other members as your current addiction to reverting as many edits, as quicky as possible, doesn't seem to be doing you any favours. Gretnagod 03:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 

I see the trolls are in a bit early tonight.  Monkeyman 03:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 

What I am really getting at is that I think a decent Cockney Rhyming slang debate needs to be considered, that's all. Gretnagod 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 

What encyclopedia have you ever read that has a whole section dedicated to the word F**k or conotations or ryhmes thereof? It's pretty simple, it's a slang word used for one thing in the 21st century...slang. Slang != Encylcopedia. -Moocats 18:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 

True, but then again how many encyclopedias have you read that have a section on things as obscure as quotes from cartoons that are only used once, ie Can't sleep, clown will eat me? Gretnagod 21:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 

Can't sleep, clown will eat me -- Agreed. Hbackman 04:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 

For one, I'm Australian, and I've never heard that particular rhyming slang. -- Ch'marr 23:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 

I would also point to Cockney rhyming slang - surely if it is accepted as an entry then any other article that relates to that entry should have something in it saying so? Gretnagod 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[Tempus Fugit 214]

Thought you might enjoy the below exchange that I found.

 

Cockney Rhyming Slang - F**k

 

Should the cockney Rhyming Slang 'Donald Duck' be added? Gretnagod 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 

In my opinion, no, it is non-notable and unencyclopedic trivia. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 

But cockney rhyming slang is used throughout the Anglo-Saxon world, particularly Australia. And, considering you admit is is soley your opinion, don't you admit you were a bit hasty in reverting the edit? Gretnagod 03:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 

In fact, if you really want an adminship, surely you should try to culture other members as your current addiction to reverting as many edits, as quicky as possible, doesn't seem to be doing you any favours. Gretnagod 03:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 

I see the trolls are in a bit early tonight.  Monkeyman 03:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 

What I am really getting at is that I think a decent Cockney Rhyming slang debate needs to be considered, that's all. Gretnagod 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 

What encyclopedia have you ever read that has a whole section dedicated to the word F**k or conotations or ryhmes thereof? It's pretty simple, it's a slang word used for one thing in the 21st century...slang. Slang != Encylcopedia. -Moocats 18:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 

True, but then again how many encyclopedias have you read that have a section on things as obscure as quotes from cartoons that are only used once, ie Can't sleep, clown will eat me? Gretnagod 21:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 

Can't sleep, clown will eat me -- Agreed. Hbackman 04:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 

For one, I'm Australian, and I've never heard that particular rhyming slang. -- Ch'marr 23:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 

I would also point to Cockney rhyming slang - surely if it is accepted as an entry then any other article that relates to that entry should have something in it saying so? Gretnagod 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's that kind of exchange that makes Wiki so great,

 

You'd never get that on the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

[Guest how can we unite to wipe outwiki]

How can we get rid of Wikipedia. I agree it should bewiped out of the internet

1. boycott it

 

In response to my complaint about defamatory comments they tell me that you can not make legal threats!!!

 

 

please please can we all do something

[Godot 149]

How can we get rid of Wikipedia. I agree it should bewiped out of the internet

1. boycott it

 

In response to my complaint about defamatory comments they tell me that you can not make legal threats!!!

 

 

please please can we all do something

No. F**k off.

[weatherman90 7]

I too was disappointed when we lost our DL article. If we really want one, I would be willing to fight to the death in order to preserve it. I have a few connections among the higher ranking wikipedians - and with some proper sourcing and a bibliography (which the copyright-paranoid wikipedians love to see), I think we could pull it off. I'm pretty sure that if we would make a well written article with some images to make it look pretty, there wouldn't be a problem.

 

As for wikipedia on the whole, I don't think it sucks. It is the paranoid administrators that parade around deleting fair use images and other material that just bothers them that makes wikipedia worse. I'm pretty sure most of them have obsessive compulsive, so we can't be too hard on them.

 

The topic description - well I technically don't have my own page - it is just intended to be a page for me to tell people a little about me and my wikipedia usage, although I obviously use it as a sort of homepage and of course a homebase for WDP (Which some crazy admin will most certainly discover and expose one day).

 

If someone would be kind enough to write a draft as to what the article should say (& post it here), it would help out a lot.

[M.Lawrenson 11]

 

Yes, friends of friends etc... whether what is written there is true or not. It wont be long before a website is set up called dikipedia

I wish you hadn't just put that idea in my head.

 

Dikipedia - not that you'd get away with calling it that - would be a completely spoof encyclopedia editable by all, which re-writes the history of the universe.

 

That would be a very popular site.

 

Just imagine...

 

Hitler's armies were marching through Europe in 1940, and England surrendered after Churchill was bought off with a crate of scotch.

 

However, Captain Kirk, travelling back in time, infiltrated Switzerland and armed the Swiss Guard with phasers.

 

Big Daddy then challenged Hitler to a Hell-in-a-Cell submission match, wherein Adolf tapped out while in a Boston Crab, thus surrending Europe.

 

I don't normally reply to ancient posts, but have you seen Uncyclopedia?

 

After that, you can check out my latest Wikipedia graphic triumph here.

[Godot 149]

I don't normally reply to ancient posts, but have you seen Uncyclopedia?

 

After that, you can check out my latest Wikipedia graphic triumph here.

 

Cracking family tree ML. Must have taken a lot of time and effort.

[Dr Hackenslash 25]

I don't normally reply to ancient posts, but have you seen Uncyclopedia?

 

After that, you can check out my latest Wikipedia graphic triumph here.

 

Have found that site since posting, but thanks. And the tree is very impressive.

 

I still think Wiki does more harm than good. I personally love reading the talk pages and the reasons why people have been banned. And, as ever, it seems to be one rule for one lot and another for others.

 

Oh, and the page on "model" Katie "Jordan" Price has been vandalized and nobody has realised:

 

Although she was already a well-established model, with frequent appearances on Page 3 and in men's lifestyle magazines such as Horse And Hound and Wizzards Sleeve to her credit...

 

Wasn't me - and it has been there for weeks. Schoolboy humour can be fun...

[weatherman90 7]

Americans, and anyone else who reads English wikipedia have a tendency to read dirty articles:

 

16 out of the top 100 visited pages, found here, are sex related. I won't post them for obvious reasons, but if you browse through, you will indeed see the 16 sex related articles that made the top 100.

 

I suppose most of this can be attributed to the fact that the average man who discovers wikipedia will instantly wonder if it has an article on "boobs".

[Godot 149]

Americans, and anyone else who reads English wikipedia have a tendency to read dirty articles:

 

16 out of the top 100 visited pages, found here, are sex related. I won't post them for obvious reasons, but if you browse through, you will indeed see the 16 sex related articles that made the top 100.

 

I suppose most of this can be attributed to the fact that the average man who discovers wikipedia will instantly wonder if it has an article on "boobs".

 

 

Substitute "average adolescent boy".

[Star Crossed 33]

the average man who discovers wikipedia will instantly wonder if it has an article on "boobs".

Boobs!

[Real Madron 6]

i would have thought 16 out of 100 is quite a low score for sex-related searches?

[Canadian Paul 97]

Wikipedia and George Melly .

[weatherman90 7]

Very fascinating find CP - I imagine certain celebrities themselves patrol their articles.

 

Here's a link to Tom Melly's, son of George Melly, wikipedia Userpage.

 

Apparently, Tom works in IT support, which is obviously much less exciting than being a jazz musician. Maybe we could get Tom to post a "Melly-Meter" on his page to monitor his father's health.

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

The worlds oldest living politician Gerhard Helders has died at 107 http://en.wikipedia..../Gerard_Helders

 

Indeed he has: the news site of Dutch broadcaster NOS has the story, in Dutch. Interestingly, some anonymous editor already mentioned his death last Monday just after midnight, in a list of centenarians in the Dutch Wikipedia. I reverted his edit, [snip]

 

regards,

Hein

 

Does anyone still bother with Wikipedia after this?

[Spade_Cooley 9,515]

The worlds oldest living politician Gerhard Helders has died at 107 http://en.wikipedia..../Gerard_Helders

 

Indeed he has: the news site of Dutch broadcaster NOS has the story, in Dutch. Interestingly, some anonymous editor already mentioned his death last Monday just after midnight, in a list of centenarians in the Dutch Wikipedia. I reverted his edit, [snip]

 

regards,

Hein

 

Does anyone still bother with Wikipedia after this?

 

No, it fell from being the fourth most-used website in the world to having no users within a week.

[Guest Guest]

OMG i wrote my university thesus on that war.You mean it didn't happen at all?!

[Death Impends 7,957]

I still consider Wikipedia useful for the most part. Obviously there are flaws with anyone being able to edit, but hoaxes that endure are pretty rare and recent deaths tend to listed on the appropriate page almost right away.

[Magere Hein 1,400]

Interestingly, some anonymous editor already mentioned his death last Monday just after midnight, in a list of centenarians in the Dutch Wikipedia. I reverted his edit, [snip]

 

Does anyone still bother with Wikipedia after this?

 

So a hoax was put in Wikipedia. That wasn't the first time, it won't be the last time. See WP's own list of hoaxes that were spotted. I'm certain many more lurk in there.

 

It's good practice not to take WP as gospel. Never use Wikipedia as a source for scholarly or professional work.

 

That said: WP is a remarkable source of information, generally of good quality and, perhaps most importantly, cheap. I regularly put time and effort in improving and extending it. I've spotted dozens of hoaxes in the Dutch version, often minutes after they were posted.

 

regards,

Hein

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

Interestingly, some anonymous editor already mentioned his death last Monday just after midnight, in a list of centenarians in the Dutch Wikipedia. I reverted his edit, [snip]

 

Does anyone still bother with Wikipedia after this?

 

So a hoax was put in Wikipedia. That wasn't the first time, it won't be the last time. See WP's own list of hoaxes that were spotted. I'm certain many more lurk in there.

 

It's good practice not to take WP as gospel. Never use Wikipedia as a source for scholarly or professional work.

 

That said: WP is a remarkable source of information, generally of good quality and, perhaps most importantly, cheap. I regularly put time and effort in improving and extending it. I've spotted dozens of hoaxes in the Dutch version, often minutes after they were posted.

 

regards,

Hein

I take a much more cynical view of it. I cite it (normally for reasons of laziness) on a site like this but don't use it for my professional work. In fact, I use Google filters to block it most of the time these days. There is a well-known Australian saying that "a camel is a horse designed by a committee" and that is how I feel about Wikipedia.

 

In fact, a while ago I read a few interesting studies about why open source works so well for software development and why it went so wrong for Wikipedia in terms of quality control. Wiki is a success in terms of visibility, number of visitors and breadth of coverage (particularly of pop culture issues that wouldn't make it in a traditional encyclopedia) but quality simply has risen since its inception. A lot of it is down to the editorial policies and control mechanisms in place but, IMHO, the whole concept is deeply flawed.

 

Also, how do you put in place policies to counter mass-editing by organised factions wishing to impose a certain slant,

?

[Toast 16,131]

You've lost me. Does this have something to do with the world's oldest people?

[Magere Hein 1,400]

Does anyone still bother with Wikipedia after this?

It's good practice not to take WP as gospel. Never use Wikipedia as a source for scholarly or professional work.

 

That said: WP is a remarkable source of information, generally of good quality and, perhaps most importantly, cheap. I regularly put time and effort in improving and extending it. I've spotted dozens of hoaxes in the Dutch version, often minutes after they were posted.

I take a much more cynical view of it. I cite it (normally for reasons of laziness) on a site like this but don't use it for my professional work. In fact, I use Google filters to block it most of the time these days. There is a well-known Australian saying that "a camel is a horse designed by a committee" and that is how I feel about Wikipedia.

 

Of course it's all unwieldy; that comes with the territory. And yes, it takes a lot of work by many editors to keep the rubbish out, and it doesn't always succeed.

 

In fact, a while ago I read a few interesting studies about why open source works so well for software development and why it went so wrong for Wikipedia in terms of quality control. Wiki is a success in terms of visibility, number of visitors and breadth of coverage (particularly of pop culture issues that wouldn't make it in a traditional encyclopedia) but quality simply has risen since its inception. A lot of it is down to the editorial policies and control mechanisms in place but, IMHO, the whole concept is deeply flawed.

 

I understand what you're saying. Open source software development isn't without its own flaws, but it works much better for several reasons, an important one is that most contributors know what they're doing.

 

In a project that has the meek goal of collecting all human knowledge, something we all have a part of and feel deeply about, things aren't so easy. I won't call it deeply flawed, but I know well that Wikipedia has serious built-in problems. Perhaps the most worrying part of that is that in the twelve years it exists it's grown in (I think) the most successful not-for-profit web enterprise, with a truly global impact. Financing it without compromising its independence and ideals, and keeping its content reliable will grow more and more difficult. I'm not confident that the future of WP is bright.

 

Also, how do you put in place policies to counter mass-editing by organised factions wishing to impose a certain slant,

?

 

The mechanisms are there: edits that present points of view as fact are to be rejected. Also there's a policy that facts, as well as evaluations of points of view, must be sourced to scholarly literature. These mechanisms work as good as the people who apply them. In the Israely case you've linked to, there are enough people who have an axe to grind with Israel who will fiercely contest any slanted edit these people try to slip in.

 

That is where Wikipedia shows its worst side, BTW. As soon as a confict over edits arises, things soon get nasty. Your committee remark hits the spot smack on there. The mechanisms for conflict resolution work reasonably well but painfully slow and often editors become deeply emotional. This often leads to good editors leaving the project, which of course means that the bad ones get more room.

 

regards,

Hein

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

Yes, I think we actually agree more than we disagree, Magere. I am just more inclined to take the glass half-empty view of it. I also read recently that, although the number of users has risen, the number of people applying to become senior editors has slumped quite dramatically (I think it was for a number of reasons including the complicated rules, the perception that there were cliques of editors inclined towards bullying newcomers, etc).

 

In fact, what you are saying indicates that it doesn't really scale well. You need to throw more people at it to keep rubbish out but more people may mean less consistency, a need for more funding to keep the operation going (which may lead to bias) and so on.

"Also there's a policy that facts, as well as evaluations of points of view, must be sourced to scholarly literature."

Is that always the case, though? I have seen many articles that cite facts from websites, not scholarly articles. Generally, the better articles cite from more reputable websites but even that doesn't seem well-enforced.

 

Also what about the pop culture articles? I presume there is a lower standard for them since there aren't always going to be up-to-date academic sources for all of them.

 

"In the Israely case you've linked to, there are enough people who have an axe to grind with Israel who will fiercely contest any slanted edit these people try to slip in."

I don't know if having two extremes go at each other will result in a balanced and impartial middle ground being reached... Anyway, I dare say Israel has more resources to throw at this than Hamas, Iranians or neo-Nazi fringe types so they will probably "win" any edit war.

 

Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion of the world's oldest people....

[Magere Hein 1,400]

I've taken the liberty to move this discussion from the "World's Oldest" topic after complaints from the neighbours.

 

"Also there's a policy that facts, as well as evaluations of points of view, must be sourced to scholarly literature."

Is that always the case, though? I have seen many articles that cite facts from websites, not scholarly articles. Generally, the better articles cite from more reputable websites but even that doesn't seem well-enforced.

 

If scholarly literature is availabe online, which is often the case, it can be used. Depending on context, reference to news websites and such can be acceptable.

 

Sourcing is a problem in general. Many WP articles can be found that are riddled with those pesky ^{Citation needed} tags. Whether those needs are ever filled depends on the effort editors are willing to put into providing them.

 

Also what about the pop culture articles? I presume there is a lower standard for them since there aren't always going to be up-to-date academic sources for all of them.

 

You presume correctly.

 

"In the Israely case you've linked to, there are enough people who have an axe to grind with Israel who will fiercely contest any slanted edit these people try to slip in."

I don't know if having two extremes go at each other will result in a balanced and impartial middle ground being reached... Anyway, I dare say Israel has more resources to throw at this than Hamas, Iranians or neo-Nazi fringe types so they will probably "win" any edit war.

 

Oh, a conflict by two extremes will not result in a balanced and impartial middle ground by itself. The usual routine is that

• an edit war (in which two or more editors revert each other's edits as soon as they're spotted) erupts
  
• a non-partisan editor steps in
  
• the page is locked
  
• resolution by discussion is attempted
  
• resolution by discussion fails
  
• the conflict is escalated to the community
  
• the conflict is resolved by some authority
  

By the time the last bit is reached, several editors, inclusing non-partisans, have left the project in a huff.

 

regards,

Hein

[Gunjaman5000 30]

Idly googling the other day, I found a Wiki page for a fella I used to work with. The thing is, that his name is similar to someone who has done something noteworty in/with their life and not someone who has not. Definitely not (long story).

 

I'd bet the mortgage that the arrogant prick put it there himself. Cunt.