The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> We lost, Wikipedia wins
Emperor
post Sat 8th September 2012, 2:27pm
Post #1


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,868
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



There is an entire generation of young adults out there who believes a bunch of stuff they read in Wikipedia.

They think Wikipedian, that combative, know-it-all, don't believe it unless they read it online, partisan, can't-be-reasoned-with attitude.

Wikipedia critics tried to get a message out but were overwhelmed by crazies, many of them Wikipedians themselves intentionally muddying the waters.

It's a decade later. The people who remember how to think are dying off. Game over.

Jimbo made a few bucks. Hopefully he feels bad a little. After a decade of actively serving hardcore pornography to children in schools he should be in jail.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Mon 10th September 2012, 4:10am
Post #2


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I think that is a little broad. There will still be tons of mechanics, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, mathematicians, engineers, etc. that aren't affected in any way if Wikipedia is "wrong" in their field. It either works or it doesn't and the consequences are rather quick in those fields. Then there are tons of fields that don't really have much on Wikipedia - like clerks in a convenience store or cooks.

Most of society is immune from Wikipedia and anything like it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
victim of censorship
post Mon 10th September 2012, 9:38am
Post #3


Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,166
Joined: Tue 6th Jan 2009, 8:33am
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640



QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th September 2012, 11:10pm) *

I think that is a little broad. There will still be tons of mechanics, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, mathematicians, engineers, etc. that aren't affected in any way if Wikipedia is "wrong" in their field. It either works or it doesn't and the consequences are rather quick in those fields. Then there are tons of fields that don't really have much on Wikipedia - like clerks in a convenience store or cooks.

Most of society is immune from Wikipedia and anything like it.



YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG ON THIS...

SEE Andrew Keen
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Retrospect
post Mon 10th September 2012, 12:09pm
Post #4


Londoner born and bred
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed 7th Dec 2011, 1:16pm
From: London
Member No.: 71,989

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Mon 10th September 2012, 10:38am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th September 2012, 11:10pm) *


YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG ON THIS...

You are accusing the saintly Dr. Ottava of being wrong? Heresy! Heresy!!

(You have completed your bloody PhD now Ottava, haven't you?)

This post has been edited by Retrospect: Mon 10th September 2012, 12:10pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Mon 10th September 2012, 5:41pm
Post #5


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Mon 10th September 2012, 5:38am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th September 2012, 11:10pm) *

I think that is a little broad. There will still be tons of mechanics, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, mathematicians, engineers, etc. that aren't affected in any way if Wikipedia is "wrong" in their field. It either works or it doesn't and the consequences are rather quick in those fields. Then there are tons of fields that don't really have much on Wikipedia - like clerks in a convenience store or cooks.

Most of society is immune from Wikipedia and anything like it.



YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG ON THIS...

SEE Andrew Keen



Relying on Andrew Keen to critique Jimbo is a failure to not realize that everyone connected to such things are exaggerating their importance. You have chosen one cult charade over another. Neither side is meaningful or has any real influence. You need to spend more time in reality and not the internet. The internet people are only well-known or influential in their own minds.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Mon 10th September 2012, 7:11pm
Post #6


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 10th September 2012, 6:41pm) *

You need to spend more time in reality and not the internet. The internet people are only well-known or influential in their own minds.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Tue 11th September 2012, 2:00pm
Post #7


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
Member No.: 81



Wikipedia has eliminated critical thought? I don't see the connection. It's true that people tend to accept written sources rather uncritically, but that's true whether you're talking about an internet encyclopedia or a traditional encyclopedia--or a newspaper, for that matter. If anything, engagement in the creation of the product, or at least awareness of the way it is produced, ought to encourage more critical evaluation of written sources, a greater perception of fallibility. Are people more likely to critically evaluate Wikipedia, or Britannica?

Anyway, Wikipedia has only "won" because it has provided a product that is vital for the age we live in--a really big, very up-to-date, easily accessible, free internet encyclopedia. Nobody has been able to compete, because nothing else satisfies the demand nearly as well. The Wikipedia model is the one that works.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dtobias
post Tue 11th September 2012, 7:15pm
Post #8


Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG]
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,213
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 2:45pm
From: Boca Raton, FL, USA
Member No.: 962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Andrew Keen strikes me as a pretentious twit cashing in on the backlash against excesses of Internet exuberance by writing things equally vapid in the opposing point of view.

On the other hand, he still probably has sufficient sense that, if he happened to be aware of the existence of Mr. VoC here, he'd probably disavow the views of that nutcase as not being in any way justified by anything Keen wrote.

Keen deserves to be calmly rebutted. VoC deserves to be locked up in a padded cell.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Tue 11th September 2012, 10:37pm
Post #9


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,868
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



sorry database error made me post twice
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Tue 11th September 2012, 10:41pm
Post #10


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,868
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 11th September 2012, 10:00am) *

Wikipedia has eliminated critical thought? I don't see the connection. It's true that people tend to accept written sources rather uncritically, but that's true whether you're talking about an internet encyclopedia or a traditional encyclopedia--or a newspaper, for that matter. If anything, engagement in the creation of the product, or at least awareness of the way it is produced, ought to encourage more critical evaluation of written sources, a greater perception of fallibility. Are people more likely to critically evaluate Wikipedia, or Britannica?

Anyway, Wikipedia has only "won" because it has provided a product that is vital for the age we live in--a really big, very up-to-date, easily accessible, free internet encyclopedia. Nobody has been able to compete, because nothing else satisfies the demand nearly as well. The Wikipedia model is the one that works.


It works as maybe an entertainment curiosity, but for anything important there are way better ways to get an accurate picture of the world. Too many errors, hoaxes, distortions, perverts etc. People trust the internet ridiculously. I had an argument with some guy about something, he wouldn't believe me because the web page said something different. I had written the page myself!

The greater perception of fallibility has led to not trusting anything or anyone, which simply isn't true. You need to trust in order to get anything done. Not trusting leads to crazy decisions based in internet-know-it-all dork logic, not reason. I don't really know how to explain this to you. If you don't know it by now you never will.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dtobias
post Tue 11th September 2012, 11:05pm
Post #11


Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG]
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,213
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 2:45pm
From: Boca Raton, FL, USA
Member No.: 962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 11th September 2012, 6:41pm) *

I had an argument with some guy about something, he wouldn't believe me because the web page said something different. I had written the page myself!


Then, basically, you were arguing with yourself.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Tue 11th September 2012, 11:35pm
Post #12


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 11th September 2012, 6:41pm) *


Too many errors, hoaxes, distortions, perverts etc. People trust the internet ridiculously.



I think people are more easily mislead by chain letters/chain emails than by Wikipedia. Snopes was created to combat against that.

Why not create a Wikipedia targeted version of Snopes?

Regardless, people will always be ignorant, easily mislead, etc., regardless of Wikipedia's existence.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
victim of censorship
post Wed 12th September 2012, 4:44am
Post #13


Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,166
Joined: Tue 6th Jan 2009, 8:33am
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640



QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 11th September 2012, 2:15pm) *

Andrew Keen strikes me as a pretentious twit cashing in on the backlash against excesses of Internet exuberance by writing things equally vapid in the opposing point of view.

On the other hand, he still probably has sufficient sense that, if he happened to be aware of the existence of Mr. VoC here, he'd probably disavow the views of that nutcase as not being in any way justified by anything Keen wrote.

Keen deserves to be calmly rebutted. VoC deserves to be locked up in a padded cell.


I think you need to be jacked in the ass by BIG- N- VEINY TARC...

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Wed 12th September 2012, 4:47am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Wed 12th September 2012, 5:55pm
Post #14


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,868
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



well, uh, good seeing you guys again.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Wed 12th September 2012, 7:29pm
Post #15


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Emperor @ Wed 12th September 2012, 1:55pm) *

well, uh, good seeing you guys again.



Hi Emperor. Good to see you about too. smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Sun 7th July 2013, 10:20pm
Post #16


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



For those who believe, no proof is necessary; for those who don't believe, no proof is possible.
- Stuart Chase
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jay
post Wed 10th July 2013, 7:11pm
Post #17


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun 23rd Aug 2009, 5:15pm
Member No.: 13,123



QUOTE(Text @ Sun 7th July 2013, 11:20pm) *

For those who believe, no proof is necessary; for those who don't believe, no proof is possible.
- Stuart Chase

It's actually by John & Lyn St. Clair Thomas, from their book "Eyes of the Beholder".

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=90JzTSL...ble.%22&f=false
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Wed 10th July 2013, 9:37pm
Post #18


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



QUOTE
It's actually by John & Lyn St. Clair Thomas, from their book "Eyes of the Beholder".


Then it's yet another example of how search engines and people's crowdsourcing fail to understand which is true and which is false.

The show Criminal Minds has this quote attributed to Chase at the end of one of their episodes.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Fri 12th July 2013, 7:53pm
Post #19


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



QUOTE(Text @ Wed 10th July 2013, 10:37pm) *

QUOTE
It's actually by John & Lyn St. Clair Thomas, from their book "Eyes of the Beholder".


Then it's yet another example of how search engines and people's crowdsourcing fail to understand which is true and which is false.

The show Criminal Minds has this quote attributed to Chase at the end of one of their episodes.

That's the problem of Wikipedia in miniature. People slap down any old junk that can be "verified" by a Google search of dubious sites.
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: 18th 11 17, 4:48am