FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php)
Most crappy important article -
     
 
The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

> Most crappy important article
Doc glasgow
post
Post #1


Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90



Muammar Gaddafi is an evil dictator. But even evil dictators don't deserve such shit wiki-bios.

It got me wondering - what's the most crappy article on a really important core topic that anyone can find on Wikipedia? Is the Gaddafi bio just bad because he's controversial.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Replies
EricBarbour
post
Post #2


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066



WP articles on major corporations tend to be either stubs, or battlegrounds for two general groups: paid editors trying to make a happy-love-time article, and Wiki-Dinks with progressive views posting negative information about the firm.

Look at the IBM article. The long and varied history of America's most venerable computing company is glossed over miserably; there's a large section of "selected current projects" that looks like a bunch of company press releases mashed together; and an "environmental record" section that appears to have been massaged by company shills, and fails to mention the severe pollution problems at the Almaden Research Center.

Oh, yeah, wanna see something really funny?

Yes, I saw the History of IBM article. It's full of random-appearing detail, is poorly written, and has plenty of references that aren't referring to anything. Some of the articles about historic IBM products are pretty good, some are utter crap.

Go ahead, try any Fortune 500 firm's name.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post



Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now:
 
     
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)