If Wikipedia is "The Sum Of All Human Knowledge"....... Options

[EricBarbour]

....then where's the article about Tureng Tepe, one of the oldest known human settlements in Iran to be continuously inhabited?
(First excavated in 1931.)

Where's the article about Chogha Bonut, an Iranian settlement dating from 8000 BCE? There's one for Chogha Mish, there's one for Tappeh Sialk.

For that matter, why is Ganj Dareh's article still a useless stub? Four years old, and still no improvement. Want some references? Here here here.

Oh, yeah, right. Silly me.
Iranian prehistory isn't as much happy-happy-fun as
attacking Scientologists and chasing sockpuppets
and writing long screeds about Scooby-Doo.

Nerdipedia. Done.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 14th July 2010, 10:09pm

[GlassBeadGame]

....then where's the article about Tureng Tepe, one of the oldest known human settlements in Iran to be continuously inhabited?
(First excavated in 1931.)

Where's the article about Chogha Bonut, an Iranian settlement dating from 8000 BCE? There's one for Chogha Mish, there's one for Tappeh Sialk.

For that matter, why is Ganj Dareh's article still a useless stub? Four years old, and still no improvement. Want some references? Here here here.

Oh, yeah, right. Silly me.
Iranian prehistory isn't as much happy-happy-fun as
attacking Scientologists and chasing sockpuppets
and writing long screeds about Scooby-Doo.

Nerdipedia. Done.

Could be a spelling mistake.

[timbo]

....then where's the article about Tureng Tepe, one of the oldest known human settlements in Iran to be continuously inhabited?
(First excavated in 1931.)

Where's the article about Chogha Bonut, an Iranian settlement dating from 8000 BCE? There's one for Chogha Mish, there's one for Tappeh Sialk.

For that matter, why is Ganj Dareh's article still a useless stub? Four years old, and still no improvement. Want some references? Here here here.

Oh, yeah, right. Silly me.
Iranian prehistory isn't as much happy-happy-fun as
attacking Scientologists and chasing sockpuppets
and writing long screeds about Scooby-Doo.

Nerdipedia. Done.

Instead of carping, you could write the pieces.

Just a thought.


t

[GlassBeadGame]

....then where's the article about Tureng Tepe, one of the oldest known human settlements in Iran to be continuously inhabited?
(First excavated in 1931.)

Where's the article about Chogha Bonut, an Iranian settlement dating from 8000 BCE? There's one for Chogha Mish, there's one for Tappeh Sialk.

For that matter, why is Ganj Dareh's article still a useless stub? Four years old, and still no improvement. Want some references? Here here here.

Oh, yeah, right. Silly me.
Iranian prehistory isn't as much happy-happy-fun as
attacking Scientologists and chasing sockpuppets
and writing long screeds about Scooby-Doo.

Nerdipedia. Done.

Instead of carping, you could write the pieces.

Just a thought.


t

Go home you pathetic lost loser.

[Somey]

Go home you pathetic lost loser.

Let's not jump to conclusions; he may well know exactly where he is, geographically at least. Also, instead of telling folks like Mr. Timbo to buzz off (not that there's anything wrong with that), I was thinking we might as well just quick-delete posts that say "why don't you just write the article" or even "why don't you fix the error yourself," particularly if such posts don't provide a viable reason why it would be in anyone's best interests to do so. (Assuming that's even possible!)

I should also say that I have nothing personal against Mr. Timbo, who for all I know may well be a fine, decent human being.

[DoctorHver]

I would say, no. If Wikipedia were that it "The Sum Of All Human Knowledge" then we could find everything there. information on all then- "none" notable topics but according to Wikipedia is notablity policy many of them aren´t included so wikipedia fails flat on its intal goal encyclopaedic is to include everything about every topic but policy of notability makes wikipedia fail on its intal goal by default, and I wonder who give them (wikiidots) to decide what is notable and what's not notable. AS there is old saying that is notable to me might not be notable to others and versa. SO i think Wikipeda could improve by dropping the notability policy altogether, but knowning them it will never happens, it is more likley that Britain will became a republic

This post has been edited by DoctorHver: Thu 15th July 2010, 7:17pm

[Peter Damian]

Instead of carping, you could write the pieces.
Just a thought.
t

[very rude comment redacted]

I have to admit you have made some interesting, if obscure contributions e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carrite#...ional_Histories

although they are the socialist equivalent of old Dr Who episodes. At least you are contributing something, instead of supporting the power-hungry fascists who run the place. But given your political sympathies, why are you supporting an organisation that exploits labour?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 15th July 2010, 7:08pm

[A Horse With No Name]

Not the sum of all knowledge.

Some knowledge, perhaps. A lot of trivia. A ton of crap.

And some damn fine writing -- plagiarism, mostly, but at least it is readable.

[TungstenCarbide]

Instead of carping, you could write the pieces.

why on earth would someone invest the effort creating content when its durability is at the whim of every nutcase on the internet ?

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Thu 15th July 2010, 9:22pm

[Milton Roe]

Instead of carping, you could write the pieces.

why on earth would someone invest the effort creating content when it's durability is at the whim of every nutcase on the internet ?

Answers.com, my friend, answers.com. It's WP's backup, along with half a dozen other sites. They can lay waste to your pretty good article, but somebody somewhere out there will appreciate it, if it genuinely is written well and is more acurate.

Plus, did you know there really is a Santa Claus?

[EricBarbour]

Instead of carping, you could write the pieces.
Just a thought.

Instead of sniping at me for criticizing your Glorious Socialisty-Smelling "Encyclopedia",
you could write them. I refuse. It's a waste of my more-precious-than-yours time.

[A Horse With No Name]

Instead of carping, you could write the pieces.

Or you can plagiarize it. Hey, it worked for Steve Smith.

Plus, did you know there really is a Santa Claus?

Nah, I gave a good yank at the white beard -- turned out it was Newyorkbrad taking part-time work at Macy's.

[timbo]

The quote feature of this board is a bit over my head at this point, so I'll ramble...

1. But seriously, folks — if an article is missing about A, B, or C, don't complain about it being missing, write the piece. One can hate the decision-making system of Wikipedia or loathe any number of contributors and administrators while still appreciating and attempting to work upon the project, can they not?

2. Per the question of why one should waste one's time on something inherently non-durable... I liken it to building sand castles on the beach. If one is writing about a controversial topic — say [[Republican Party]] or [[Barack Obama]] — the tide is going to wash away your work within 12 hours. On the hand, if you do your construction back from the tide, writing on less obvious or less controversial topics (such as [[Tureng Tepe]], or [[Chogha Bonut]], etc.), the sand castles remain for a long time. You might have to tidy them up a bit if the wind comes up, but basically work does last.

3. On rude comments... Redact them or don't, I don't care. I have thick skin. If one criticizes group-think and then engages in -1 * (group-think), that says something about them, does it not? I have my criticisms of Wikipedia and I also feel it is a very valuable project. If you want to see the world in two colors, you're welcome to. I don't.

I guess that covers it.

A serious answer for a serious question,


tim

This post has been edited by timbo: Fri 16th July 2010, 2:11am

[A Horse With No Name]

1. But seriously, folks — if an article is missing about A, B, or C, don't complain about it being missing, write the piece.

Wikipedia could use an article on Louis Proyect -- he is someone up your alley, Timbo. Why not take a spin at that?

[TungstenCarbide]

2. Per the question of why one should waste one's time on something inherently non-durable... I liken it to building sand castles on the beach...

sand castles on the beach don't represent themselves as an encyclopedia, they don't perpetrate defamation that gets copied throughout the internet, and they generally don't teach school children about cock and ball torture.

Any number of revision and release systems would be trivial to set up on wikipedia. It could even have its own domain like Veropedia so that editing at the main project isn't impeded by released versions. With a revision and release system, experts might consider helping out. But wikipedia chooses not to do anything like this. Here's the reason; wide open editing attracts people, especially pimply teenagers who wish to prove to the world that they know everything. Wide open editing foments drama which some personalities find addicting.

Wikipedia is a whore that has sold itself out to be popular instead of reliable.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Fri 16th July 2010, 2:37am

[thekohser]

But seriously, folks — if an article is missing about A, B, or C, don't complain about it being missing, write the piece.

That's what I've done for the past few years, and I've found that it's rather lucrative!

[TungstenCarbide]

Instead of carping, you could write the pieces.

Just a thought.

Many people, timbo, have gone through that phase. Editing at wikipedia is kinda fun at first, like a relaxing hobby. Then, after not to long you realize ... hey, Jimbo is getting $70,000 per speech off of my labor. Then you notice that leadership positions at wikipedia have absolutely nothing to do with merit, but rather how gifted a person is at social climbing and gabbing on irc, or toeing the line, or (a few years back) being Jimbo's sycophant. Then you watch the nutballs and wackos come crawling out from under every rock and start chewing through your work like termites. Then you watch psychotic perverts stealing pornographic images, running them through a jpeg to svg converter to mask their origin and uploading them, after which they are guarded by a vicious pack of pro-pornography pit bulls. Then you start getting lectured by smug illiterate teen-aged administrators who couldn't write a featured article to get laid. That's when most people hang it up, or start playing the game like a free version of World of Warcraft.

Back when Wikipedia started it wasn't so clear that this was the path it would take, but under Jimbo's leadership here we are. Seven or so years ago it was understandable for a serious editor to expect that Wikipedia would evolve into a responsible publication. But nowadays very few people edit Wikipedia with the expectation of creating a durable and reliable piece of work.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Fri 16th July 2010, 4:54am

[milowent]

Instead of carping, you could write the pieces.

Just a thought.

Many people, timbo, have gone through that phase. Editing at wikipedia is kinda fun at first, like a relaxing hobby. Then, after not to long you realize ... hey, Jimbo is getting $70,000 per speech off of my labor. Then you notice that leadership positions at wikipedia have absolutely nothing to do with merit, but rather how gifted a person is at social climbing and gabbing on irc, or toeing the line, or (a few years back) being Jimbo's sycophant. Then you watch the nutballs and wackos come crawling out from under every rock and start chewing through your work like termites. Then you watch psychotic perverts stealing pornographic images, running them through a jpeg to svg converter to mask their origin and uploading them, after which they are guarded by a vicious pack of pro-pornography pit bulls. Then you start getting lectured by smug illiterate teen-aged administrators who couldn't write a featured article to get laid. That's when most people hang it up, or start playing the game like a free version of World of Warcraft.

Back when Wikipedia started it wasn't so clear that this was the path it would take, but under Jimbo's leadership here we are. Seven or so years ago it was understandable for a serious editor to expect that Wikipedia would evolve into a responsible publication. But nowadays very few people edit Wikipedia with the expectation of creating a durable and reliable piece of work.

like building sand castles, you should only do it if you enjoy it. similarly, if someone gets their jollies by complaining about wikipedia not having articles they won't write themselves, well, that's fine too. For every Tureng Tepe article not created, there are a million other articles also not yet created. If someone wants to write about Scooby Doo instead of Tudhaliya IV, so be it.

i've not been around enough to know whether Eric actually gets enjoyment out of creating these threads, or is grinding some old axe.

[timbo]

Editing at wikipedia is kinda fun at first, like a relaxing hobby. Then, after not to long you realize ... hey, Jimbo is getting $70,000 per speech off of my labor. Then you notice that leadership positions at wikipedia have absolutely nothing to do with merit, but rather how gifted a person is at social climbing and gabbing on irc, or toeing the line, or (a few years back) being Jimbo's sycophant. Then you watch the nutballs and wackos come crawling out from under every rock and start chewing through your work like termites. Then you watch psychotic perverts stealing pornographic images, running them through a jpeg to svg converter to mask their origin and uploading them, after which they are guarded by a vicious pack of pro-pornography pit bulls. Then you start getting lectured by smug illiterate teen-aged administrators who couldn't write a featured article to get laid. That's when most people hang it up, or start playing the game like a free version of World of Warcraft.

I don't worry about how much money the Ayn Rand fan makes or concern myself with what it takes to rise up the ladder... Nor have I had any real problem with nutter butters screwing with my work... And I don't get too worked up by the porn fans either — that's not my war either way.

Smug administrators and the Talmudic scholars of Wikipedia notability doctrine can be a pain in the ass, but if you turn the other cheek, so to speak, even that is very minor in the big scheme of things.

Are there problems with Wikipedia? Absolutely. It's idiotic not having a mandatory Sign-In-To-Edit policy, which would wipe out about 90% of the vandalism in one fell swoop. Deletionism is dumb. The "voting" system is anti-democratic and elitist. There are a few...

Does any of that offset the positive aspects of Wikipedia? Not for me. Not even close...

tim

[Somey]

Does any of that offset the positive aspects of Wikipedia? Not for me. Not even close...

Positive aspects? What positive aspects? I'm intrigued.