The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: tuolumnejim on September 15, 2009, 10:07:38 PM
-
Link (http://tech.msn.com/products/articlepcw.aspx?cp-documentid=21535424>1=40000)
Wikipedia has just announced plans to restrict the editing of some of its articles. Under the new system, any changes made to pages of still-living people will have to be approved by an "experienced volunteer" before going online.
Any bets if its going to be the"fister"?
-
Link (http://tech.msn.com/products/articlepcw.aspx?cp-documentid=21535424>1=40000)
Any bets if its going to be the"fister"?
Doubt it.
-
This will limit drive by screw ups, but since a large majority of "experienced editors" are left wing hacks, I don't see this helping to improve their rep to much.
-
This will limit drive by screw ups, but since a large majority of "experienced editors" are left wing hacks, I don't see this helping to improve their rep to much.
Which is why I made the fister reference.
-
People still get their information from Wikipedia?
-
People still get their information from Wikipedia?
It's one of the best single sources of information ever devised by humankind. So, yes, people still do get their informaton from Wikipedia! More than ever!
-
It's one of the best single sources of information ever devised by humankind. So, yes, people still do get their informaton from Wikipedia! More than ever!
And there is where the problem lies. Wiki is about as accurate as the National Enquirer. Some articles are OK, I've even updated one myself (One about the USS Tripoli), but there are many other articles that have some sort of bias or political spin injected into them.
-
People still get their information from Wikipedia?
Not anyone who doesn't want to get laughed at.
Wiki is not a credible source if used in a debate.
edit: fixed qoute function. djones
-
What are the odds that "experienced volunteer" = ACORN employee or former ACORN employee?
-
Not anyone who doesn't want to get laughed at.
Wiki is not a credible source if used in a debate.
edit: fixed qoute function. djones
I think wikipedia is okay on general subjects, but nothing deep science or anything political.
-
I think wikipedia is okay on general subjects, but nothing deep science or anything political.
+1
I consider it an invaluable tool to get a quick 'over view' of something. It's generally no worse than a quick google search, while often being more comprehensive.
-
I have to echo Thundley's sentiments. It's OK for general knowledge and sometimes some technical stuff, but when it comes to people or politics, there's a bias often injected into the posting. Typically, it's a left winged bias from what I've read. This is where it takes a little common sense and knowledge to know when a Wiki article is not quite right. As far as the USS Tripoli, I was on her during Desert Storm. I'd like to believe that I remember what happened. Much was omitted from the Wiki Tripoli article for that war.
-
Anything even remotely controversial or politicized - is where Wiki fails. Or more accurately Wiki's contributors fail.
There's a surprising wealth of pure scientific information on there in subjects that haven't (or can't by their nature) been politicized.
-
If only global warming wasn't politicized...
-
If only global warming wasn't politicized...
If it weren't for politics, globalwarming would not exist.
-
That's my point. It'd be just another "conspiracy theory." Heck, I don't even think it qualifies as a conspiracy theory. More like a cult.