wikipedia offends someone
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:07 am
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:32 pm
lol, owned
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:42 pm
this is what happens when information is set free
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:58 pm
old 
(not sure why you actually didn't post this in GD. would like to see some responses to this one)
and why wouldn't it offend someone if the information entered was false and accused you of crimes you didn't commit? exactly one of the reasons why wikipedia is a good idea, but has a way to go before you can use it as a source for argument and such.
Jimmy Wales did change the new posting rules because of this, but not the editing, which should be changed also, which is a giant step in the right direction, imo.
snippet:
(not sure why you actually didn't post this in GD. would like to see some responses to this one)and why wouldn't it offend someone if the information entered was false and accused you of crimes you didn't commit? exactly one of the reasons why wikipedia is a good idea, but has a way to go before you can use it as a source for argument and such.
Jimmy Wales did change the new posting rules because of this, but not the editing, which should be changed also, which is a giant step in the right direction, imo.
snippet:
to avoid future problems, Wales plans to bar anonymous users from creating new articles; only registered members will be able to do so. That change will go into effect Monday, he said, adding that anonymous users will still be able to edit existing entries.
That's less of a problem, Wales suggested, because changes are frequently vetted by members who keep watch lists of articles they want to ensure remain accurate--perhaps even articles they've written themselves.
The change is one of the first that would specifically limit what anonymous users can do on Wikipedia. And some may see that as a significant step for a service that's traditionally prided itself on letting anyone participate. But Wales said the move is not a major one because, as mentioned, most new articles are already written by registered Wikipedia members, and most anonymous users' actions are edits to published entries.
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:10 am
Moved by request. 
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:11 am
bumpity bump+JuggerNaut+ wrote: and why wouldn't it offend someone if the information entered was false and accused you of crimes you didn't commit? exactly one of the reasons why wikipedia is a good idea, but has a way to go before you can use it as a source for argument and such.
Never said it wouldn't offend someone, just reported on what I saw. Some may read tacit judgement in the title of this thread, but it was not intentional.
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:12 am
Always appreciated.scourge34 wrote:Moved by request.
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:28 am
i wasn't thinking you really took that stance, honestly.Massive Quasars wrote:bumpity bump+JuggerNaut+ wrote: and why wouldn't it offend someone if the information entered was false and accused you of crimes you didn't commit? exactly one of the reasons why wikipedia is a good idea, but has a way to go before you can use it as a source for argument and such.
Never said it wouldn't offend someone, just reported on what I saw. Some may read tacit judgement in the title of this thread, but it was not intentional.
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:24 pm
blump
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:19 pm
This is the problem I've had with wikipedia all along. Folks go on there and claim a definition there is valid, but they dont understand that definition can be changed at anyone's whim, or be put there by someone who has obviously biased information. I like the idea of wikipedia and for the most part it does a good job, but I'm skeptical of it as a source for completely valid information....yet folks dub it as such all over the place.
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:32 pm
they don't understand that a definition can be changed? it's a wiki, it's a wiki called wikipedia. that's a problem you have with people, not wikipedia.
most of the articles on there contain links to sources and means of verification. if visitors don't want to take the time to follow those links then that's their own problem.
most of the articles on there contain links to sources and means of verification. if visitors don't want to take the time to follow those links then that's their own problem.
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:36 pm
as Canis said, a good concept, but needs work. The recent revisions is a step forward.4days wrote:they don't understand that a definition can be changed? it's a wiki, it's a wiki called wikipedia. that's a problem you have with people, not wikipedia.
most of the articles on there contain links to sources and means of verification. if visitors don't want to take the time to follow those links then that's their own problem.
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:26 pm
No. Its definitely a problem I have with wikipedia.4days wrote:they don't understand that a definition can be changed? it's a wiki, it's a wiki called wikipedia. that's a problem you have with people, not wikipedia.
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:31 pm
No, quite clearly it's a problem you have with some people's use of it.
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:45 pm
no, quite clearly it's the way wikipedia had no limitations for anonymous users.Foo wrote:No, quite clearly it's a problem you have with some people's use of it.
heh
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:17 am
that's kinda funny.
in other news, lady in red comin to my bed.
in other news, lady in red comin to my bed.
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:00 am
Right, so it looks like they're starting to seal this gaping hole.
Are there any websites caching the hilarious history of some wikipedia pages?
Are there any websites caching the hilarious history of some wikipedia pages?
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:02 am
Foo wrote:No, quite clearly it's a problem you have with some people's use of it.
Canis wrote:No. Its definitely a problem I have with wikipedia.
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:no, quite clearly it's the way wikipedia had no limitations for anonymous users.
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:54 am
yeah. that's about right.
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:00 am
I was thinking something similar.
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:31 am
Right, so to make an analogy... Our train station here in Sheffield is a public space. Some guys make use of it to go around scamming tourists/visitors out of cash 'for the bus' or 'to make a phone call'.
According to your logic, the problem lies with the train station being a public place, and not actually with the guys who choose to scam cash there.
Simpletons
According to your logic, the problem lies with the train station being a public place, and not actually with the guys who choose to scam cash there.
Simpletons
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:09 am
No, my problem lies with those who run the place. In your analogy it would be the police or the public works officials who are expected to enforce the rules for idiots who pop in and screw with things. In the case of wikipedia, its the moderators of, and those who run, the wikipedia site. These folks can all be refered to quite effectively as "Wikipedia". Hence "its definitely a problem I have with wikipedia." I hope you can understand this, but if not you can always blame it on being british. 
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:14 pm
or from just being wrong.Canis wrote: I hope you can understand this, but if not you can always blame it on being british.
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:50 am
http://www.informationweek.com/story/sh ... =174900789
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... edit_x.htm
look what wikipedia has on kung fu:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... edit_x.htm
look what wikipedia has on kung fu:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:07 pm
clickthisrighthereA man in Nashville, Tenn., has admitted that, in trying to shock a colleague with a joke, he put false information into a Wikipedia entry about John Seigenthaler Sr., a former editor of The Tennessean newspaper in Nashville.
Brian Chase, 38, who until Friday was an operations manager at a small delivery company, told Seigenthaler he had written the material suggesting Seigenthaler had been involved in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy.