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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines.

However, they are not hidden from automobile engines, including the newer, more "environmentally-friendly" electric and hybrid engines. Also, please note that this subforum is meant to be used for discussion of the actual biographical articles themselves; more generalized discussions of BLP policy should be posted in the General Discussion or Bureaucracy forums.

8 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> 13-year-old's vanity music video garners BLP, MUSICBIO trumps BLP1E and common sense
Wikicrusher2
post Thu 24th March 2011, 6:13am
Post #21


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat 17th Oct 2009, 9:34pm
From: "The name of our country is América." -Bolivar
Member No.: 14,796



QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 23rd March 2011, 10:17pm) *

...you lying sack of shit. Try to keep things straight.


This is the conduct that administrators on this site display to the public. Don't you think that would turn off visitors to the site, for a staff member to say this to another participant? Who, it must be noted, did not lie at all (unlike you).

EDIT: Oh, and hinting at Silver seren being harmful to children, with no evidence, isn't really polite behavior, so to speak.

This post has been edited by Wikicrusher2: Thu 24th March 2011, 6:22am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Thu 24th March 2011, 6:34am
Post #22


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Thu 24th March 2011, 6:13am) *

EDIT: Oh, and hinting at Silver seren being harmful to children, with no evidence, isn't really polite behavior, so to speak.


While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Thu 24th March 2011, 9:22am
Post #23


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



QUOTE(anthony @ Thu 24th March 2011, 6:34am) *
While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.

As the original poster, I defend the title. It is precisely what is going on. It is a gang rape, typical to the Wikipedia, of some naive 13 year old but a mob of faceless, anonymous, insensitive morons. Some poor girl is on the ground and they are are all up there trying to gouge their "reliable source" in. The point I made regarding Dylan is that if he had released it, it would have been hailed as a classic come back.

I posted it to demonstrate the ugly, asymmetric absurdity that is Jimmy Wales's Paedo-pedia ... in particular the regular ridiculousness of the speedy delete defend team ... (and, of course, to show off my knowledge of genuinely influential Baroque musicians). If you knew anything about music, anything about culture, anything about "knowledge", you would know just how wrong the whole thing was ... and this is another of the great failings of editorial-less Wiki-wank. All the Scarlattis together score just one reference.

The Wikipedia is just an sick joke, bordering on evil for its corruption of the idea of "knowledge" and writing, so much so that they, and you Silver, cannot see it.

Perhaps the more references a topic requires, the more of a rape it is? The rapists require their justification ... sure, the 13 year old girl was asking for it for dressing that way and doing a sexy dance; so we wp:cited her good and wp:catted her on "List of YouTube personalities".
QUOTE
So don't push your daughter to be a teen pop music star. Don't refuse when the "record company" offers to take your daughter's music video down. Don't put your daughter on Jay Leno. It's not like this girl is an unintentional public figure.

The point being, the perfectly normal kid is not a "wannabe starlet" driven by insane parents. On my scant reading of the subject, the company involved offers a kind of "stars in their eyes" "let's be a popstar for a day" service to, primarily to nice middle class families for $2,000. It's just a bit of fun the whole family gets into. A vanity record label ... link.

Does the Wikipedia publicize vanity book publish authors ... authors of "the worst book"?

It goes on in her biography. "Rebecca Black is an American pop singer who first rose to fame with her 2011 single "Friday."" Really? Really on both accounts, i.e. a) "singer" and b) "fame"? Andy Warhol come back from the dead. 3 minutes IS all it takes to get into the Wikipedia. In the real world, she wont even make it into the Guinness Book of Records. What reality do these people exist in? What reality are they making?

How old are you Silver? (This is another problem and why real Encyclopedias usually employ adults at editors, do you have any idea how many "the worst songs ever" they have been up to this date? It is utterly meaningless beyond a hurtful, personal comment just as "making $40,000" is.

And then there Ark Music Factory dressing one's pre-teen daughter up to do Robert Palmer parodies for Zachary Freiman's bar mitzvah video. As some sage said on another discussion board, "Funded by a peadophile ring ... preying on the idiocy of American pre-teen/teen girls who have little to no musical education" (and, rather cynically, it looks like they advertize in The Jewish Observer ... because we all know they are rich enough to afford this stuff for their Zacs and Beckies).
QUOTE
Ark Music Factory was launched last month by Patrice Wilson and Clarence Jey ... [they] work with girls as young as nine years old (link).



This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Thu 24th March 2011, 9:47am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Thu 24th March 2011, 9:45am
Post #24


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(anthony @ Thu 24th March 2011, 6:34am) *

QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Thu 24th March 2011, 6:13am) *

EDIT: Oh, and hinting at Silver seren being harmful to children, with no evidence, isn't really polite behavior, so to speak.


While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.


Perhaps you have all spent so long being pseudo nice to each other on WP that you've forgotten that when this sort of online mob activity takes place, most people would be in agreement that with the description of the participant as a collective waste of skin wrapped around of core of shit.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Thu 24th March 2011, 9:56am
Post #25


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 24th March 2011, 5:24am) *

So...you're saying that regardless of achievements, we should never have an article on an underage person? That if they record an album that sells extremely well world-wide, we still should not have an article on them?

I think you miss the purpose of an encyclopedia.

If you are not a deliberate wind up, you are insane.

At least wait a little more than week before deciding what is "fame", "notable" or the actually event is over.

I correlate this to the topic on the Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami which, despite the death toll now rising above 25,000, Becky Black and the Twitters has now displaced from the news.

There's seems to a legion of cross posters sitting on their computers racing each other to be the first to make a Wiki page. Man bites dog, 3 minutes later it is on the Wikipedia.

A generation ago, they would have been the little kids jumping up and down behind the newscaster at the scene shouting, "Look at me mom, I am on the TV".

And this is Jimmy Wales idea of "all the world's knowledge which is going to save the world?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Thu 24th March 2011, 3:05pm
Post #26


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



QUOTE(anthony @ Wed 23rd March 2011, 11:34pm) *
QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Thu 24th March 2011, 6:13am) *
EDIT: Oh, and hinting at Silver seren being harmful to children, with no evidence, isn't really polite behavior, so to speak.
While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.

There has been absolutely no moderation of this topic. The title is as the OP made it. If I changed it, you would complain about that.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Thu 24th March 2011, 3:06pm
Post #27


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Thu 24th March 2011, 9:22am) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Thu 24th March 2011, 6:34am) *
While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.

As the original poster, I defend the title. It is precisely what is going on. It is a gang rape, typical to the Wikipedia, of some naive 13 year old but a mob of faceless, anonymous, insensitive morons.


I hope the moderators will read this ridiculous "defense" and do the right thing. Maybe change the term from "rape" to "terrorism" or "holocaust"? I'm joking about that last sentence, of course.

I also hope (but doubt) that you'll think a little bit about what an actual rape is.

QUOTE(gomi @ Thu 24th March 2011, 3:05pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Wed 23rd March 2011, 11:34pm) *
QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Thu 24th March 2011, 6:13am) *
EDIT: Oh, and hinting at Silver seren being harmful to children, with no evidence, isn't really polite behavior, so to speak.
While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.

There has been absolutely no moderation of this topic. The title is as the OP made it. If I changed it, you would complain about that.


No, if you changed it, someone else would complain about that.

Welcome to being a moderator. You have to make decisions. And whichever way you decide, you won't ever be able to please everyone.

This post has been edited by anthony: Thu 24th March 2011, 3:37pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Thu 24th March 2011, 3:36pm
Post #28


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Thu 24th March 2011, 9:22am) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Thu 24th March 2011, 6:34am) *

So don't push your daughter to be a teen pop music star. Don't refuse when the "record company" offers to take your daughter's music video down. Don't put your daughter on Jay Leno. It's not like this girl is an unintentional public figure.

The point being, the perfectly normal kid is not a "wannabe starlet" driven by insane parents. On my scant reading of the subject, the company involved offers a kind of "stars in their eyes" "let's be a popstar for a day" service to, primarily to nice middle class families for $2,000. It's just a bit of fun the whole family gets into. A vanity record label ... link.


She went on Jay Leno. She went on Good Morning America. She didn't want ARK to take the video down. Presumably she put it up on iTunes, or at least didn't object to it staying on iTunes (I don't think iTunes would continue to sell it without her permission). If she and/or her parents didn't want the attention, they wouldn't do that. (And note that I'm not the one who called her a "'wannabe starlet' driven by insane parents".)

Some people, especially on YouTube, made some really horrible comments. The girl repeated the comments in an interview with Good Morning America, and Wikipedia reported them as part of the story. And then you reported them (the same exact comments) as part of this thread. Had the girl not repeated the comments in an interview, they almost certainly would have never been kept in Wikipedia. The girl apparently *wants* people to know that those comments were made about her. If she didn't, why go on Good Morning America and tell the world about what people said and how it made you feel?

Again, if you want to get into an argument over whether Wikipedia should have 100,000 articles or 100,000,000 articles, I'm not interested. If you want to get into an argument over whether Wikipedia should or should not report on recent events, I'm not interested, at least not in this thread. These arguments have been beaten to death, and I don't see any new aspect to them here.

I'm not interested in getting into the nature of Wikipedia. I think it's obvious that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, and that it never has been, so I don't think it's appropriate to try to compare it to encyclopedias. And I think once you accept that Wikipedia is going to report on recent events, this particular event is obviously fair game. And it seems to me that you can't disagree with that, since you yourself are reporting the events which took place. You're repeating the quotes. You're repeating her name. And you didn't even post this in a non-search-engine-archived discussion forum, so far as I can tell (someone please correct me if I'm wrong on that).

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Thu 24th March 2011, 9:22am) *

It goes on in her biography. "Rebecca Black is an American pop singer who first rose to fame with her 2011 single "Friday."" Really? Really on both accounts, i.e. a) "singer" and b) "fame"? Andy Warhol come back from the dead. 3 minutes IS all it takes to get into the Wikipedia. In the real world, she wont even make it into the Guinness Book of Records. What reality do these people exist in? What reality are they making?


The biography is pretty bad. I've got no dispute with that.

Probably the main reason why it's so bad is that it's a compromise. No, it's not accurate to describe her as an "American pop singer", and "rose to fame" is hyperbole. But that phrasing got added in, I'd bet dollars-to-donuts, in order to lessen the chance that the article gets deleted completely.

If it were up to me, I'd make the "biography" a ~one-liner which links to the song.

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Thu 24th March 2011, 9:22am) *

How old are you Silver? (This is another problem and why real Encyclopedias usually employ adults at editors, do you have any idea how many "the worst songs ever" they have been up to this date? It is utterly meaningless beyond a hurtful, personal comment just as "making $40,000" is.


Again the hypocrisy. If Wikipedia is wrong for quoting others who called it "the worst song ever", why aren't you wrong for quoting Wikipedia?

No, it's not at all the worst song ever. Though the lyrics are pretty damn bad. And that's not even the girl's fault. The singing - whatever - she's 13.

How old are you, Mr. up-over-conspiracy?

This post has been edited by anthony: Thu 24th March 2011, 4:30pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 24th March 2011, 3:52pm
Post #29


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



I'm 42, but sometimes I forget -- however, in my mind, I'm never off by more than a year.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tarc
post Thu 24th March 2011, 6:13pm
Post #30


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined: Fri 7th Mar 2008, 3:38am
Member No.: 5,309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(anthony @ Thu 24th March 2011, 2:34am) *

QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Thu 24th March 2011, 6:13am) *

EDIT: Oh, and hinting at Silver seren being harmful to children, with no evidence, isn't really polite behavior, so to speak.


While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.


Truth hurts, eh?

The thing is, the Wikipedia's hyper-inclusionists are a bunch of tabloid-obsessed little twats. They don't give two shits about who or what they're writing about, all that matters is that every tabloid story must...must must must must...become a Wikipedia article. "One event" guidelines become increasingly ineffective when they just gang up and bloc-vote Afds.

The project will not suffer or be damaged by the absence of coverage of flash-in-the-pan pop culture drivel like this. If you go to the Wikipedia looking for information about a teenaged auto-tuned one hit wonder, you are, seriously, a fucking moron.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Thu 24th March 2011, 6:32pm
Post #31


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE(Tarc @ Thu 24th March 2011, 6:13pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Thu 24th March 2011, 2:34am) *

QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Thu 24th March 2011, 6:13am) *

EDIT: Oh, and hinting at Silver seren being harmful to children, with no evidence, isn't really polite behavior, so to speak.


While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.


Truth hurts, eh?


No, comparing the writing of a Wikipedia article to rape trivializes rape.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post Thu 24th March 2011, 8:46pm
Post #32


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30th Dec 2010, 2:09pm
Member No.: 36,940

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



20 in a month.


Anyways, I agree with you that articles should not be made on subjects until about a week has passed. The only exception to such would actually be the earthquake you mentioned. Major events like that should have an article immediately, since that's really the only way to have the article be comprehensive. We've all seen how, after the fact, most articles on major events never get to any point of being good because editors have to sort through the thousands of sources. Putting them in as they happen may leave the article open to wrong information that is redacted by news sources later, but at least it gets most of the general information on there that can then, if necessary, be corrected at a later point in time.

Thus, I would have agreed with you about the Friday song article up until the moment it charted. When that happened, it met the standards that are already in place, so the topic was notable enough to have an article on. And an article on a song is a lot easier to make than an article about a current historical event.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Thu 24th March 2011, 9:25pm
Post #33


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 24th March 2011, 8:46pm) *

When that happened, it met the standards that are already in place, so the topic was notable enough to have an article on.


You say 'standard' as if it has the same meaning that someone in the normal world would give it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post Thu 24th March 2011, 9:44pm
Post #34


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30th Dec 2010, 2:09pm
Member No.: 36,940

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Every different system has different standards. Even the "normal world" has different standards in different places. Clearly, I meant the standards that have been established on Wikipedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Thu 24th March 2011, 9:51pm
Post #35


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 24th March 2011, 9:44pm) *

Every different system has different standards. Even the "normal world" has different standards in different places. Clearly, I meant the standards that have been established on Wikipedia.


So no standard at all.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sxeptomaniac
post Thu 24th March 2011, 10:41pm
Post #36


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu 18th Oct 2007, 11:49pm
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 3,542

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 24th March 2011, 2:51pm) *

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 24th March 2011, 9:44pm) *

Every different system has different standards. Even the "normal world" has different standards in different places. Clearly, I meant the standards that have been established on Wikipedia.


So no standard at all.

It's the difference between "de facto" and "de jure".

De jure, there are standards on WP. De facto, not so much, as gangs of idiots easily game them by showing up together at any important votes, especially if the only people who know about the article/votes tend to be the same idiots. Supposedly, closing admins look at arguments, but again, they rarely look at much more than the numbers in practice.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Thu 24th March 2011, 10:57pm
Post #37


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



OK, just play this to put yourself in the right mood for this post ... the Cat's Fugue.


QUOTE(anthony @ Thu 24th March 2011, 3:06pm) *
I hope the moderators will read this ridiculous "defense" and do the right thing. Maybe change the term from "rape" to "terrorism" or "holocaust"? I'm joking about that last sentence, of course.

I also hope (but doubt) that you'll think a little bit about what an actual rape is.

Yes, of course, I am reasonably well educated. Rape, rapacious has more than one mean. What the Wikipedia is, is a rapacious horde on all levels from legal (copyright etc) to that of personal privacy.

The word also means an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; a despoliation, violation or the act of seizing and carrying off by force which is how I used it. Therefore, if you are a geezer, forget playing the politically correct card with me until you have read a dictionary or two. And you're right, the backlash is so anti-semitic ! It's a wonder the JDL hasn't unleashed its defense dogs on the topic yet.


That's another problem with the Wikipedia, because there are not entrance requirements, there is no telling who is going to walk in the door and expect a right to enter, forcibly or not, a conversation.

The difference is, she 'chose' to go on Jay Leno, probably after adult counselling (formal or not) ... and with adult consent. The fuck-o-pedia does give that right to 13 year olds.

If they want to fuck her over they will ... with 44 "reliable citations" and inches of inane commentary copy and paste from the blogosphere. No, in an "encyclopedia" she wont even get a footnote, unless she becomes notable at some point in her adult life.

And that's another problem with the dishonesty that is the Wank-o-pedia, e.g. The New York Times or Telegraph might well in itself be a "reliable source" ... but that does not mean ALL OF IT is a reliable source. Newspapers, and especially newspapers' websites, publish all sort of sub-tabloid "lifestyle" crap to compete with the blogosphere, written by blogosphere types ... but will the Wikipaedians? admit that? No. If it comes to grinding their axe or pushing their agenda down the throat of a 13 year old, they will justify it on the basis of the same level of argument as you are using.

Dismissing your moot point, please just explain why Becky Black and the Blogger Blokes carry so much more gravity, importance and require that much effort in comparison to the Scarlattis. At this pint, your type usually just retreat saying, "oh, well, you can go and edit that topic you want to ...". Why would I want to?

"Friday" is no "worst" than 10,000 other songs and a lot better than many ... including some of Bob Dylan's.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Thu 24th March 2011, 11:09pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Fri 25th March 2011, 3:18am
Post #38


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 24th March 2011, 1:46pm) *
Major events like that should have an article immediately, since that's really the only way to have the article be comprehensive.

Again you prove yourself to be a Wikipidiot moron. You confuse Wikipedia with Wikinews, and both of them with actual news and actual encyclopedias. Encyclopedias cover settled fact, history, science, etc, not breaking news. Wikipedia is at its weakest (which is saying quite a lot) when it is most current. Oh, and did I mention that you're a sack of shit?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 25th March 2011, 3:22am
Post #39


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Zoloft @ Wed 23rd March 2011, 10:46pm) *
Well that was disgusting overall. I need to go eat a mint.

Not feeling the Wiki-Joy? Welcome to reality.....

QUOTE
There's seems to a legion of cross posters sitting on their computers racing each other to be the first to make a Wiki page. Man bites dog, 3 minutes later it is on the Wikipedia.

A generation ago, they would have been the little kids jumping up and down behind the newscaster at the scene shouting, "Look at me mom, I am on the TV".

And this is Jimmy Wales idea of "all the world's knowledge which is going to save the world?

I could not put it better myself.

Miss Black is not a "celebrity" or a "singer", she is an Internet meme.
And there's already an article where she belongs, if at all. Right next
to "All Your Base", "2 girls 1 cup" and Gary Brolsma.

But then Seren doesn't seem to understand the difference between
reality and Internet memes. Typical Wikipedian?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 25th March 2011, 3:39am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Fri 25th March 2011, 4:04am
Post #40


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 25th March 2011, 3:18am) *

Encyclopedias cover settled fact, history, science, etc, not breaking news. Wikipedia is at its weakest (which is saying quite a lot) when it is most current.


You seem to agree that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but then you go on judging it as though it is one.

Wikipedia is at its strongest when it is most current. Wikis are best at producing mediocre articles quickly, not producing masterpieces over long periods of time.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

8 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: 31st 3 17, 12:37am