PDA

View Full Version : What is your opinion on Wikipedia?


Zrinski
12-06-2006, 03:54 PM
I was wondering what do you think about Wikipedia? Do you think it is good? Is it objective? Is it fair?

I personally have come upon that this supposed "encyclopedia" is no better than any other biased politically correct forum. Furthermore I've come upon situations where if there are enough people who advocate a certain assertation that no matter how wrong and non-factual this claim is that this is enforced, protected and opposing members even blocked and banned.

My opinion of Wikipedia has extremely diminished over these few last weeks.

Boleslaw
12-06-2006, 04:05 PM
I find it a good source to get a reasonable introduction to a topic you're not fully familiar with. Or information about stuff thats not readily available elsewhere on the net.

However, if you want a real in-depth coverage of the topic, best to look elsewhere.

WFHermans
12-06-2006, 04:34 PM
I personally have come upon that this supposed "encyclopedia" is no better than any other biased politically correct forum. That's a good description of it. M. Proudhon is correct in his assessment. I've also found some useful deep links to source texts I wouldn't have been able to find with a normal Google search.

Fade the Butcher
12-06-2006, 04:39 PM
Some of the articles are really good. Others are of poorer quality. Wikipedia is crap whenever anyone else but Petr cites it.

Daniel Shays
12-06-2006, 04:51 PM
It's technical and scientific articles are good but its political/biography sections are pure propaganda, generated by overzealous 'editors' and of course guided along the PC line by the wiki staff.

For instance, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong) entry on Mao Zedong is laughable. I'd be hard-pressed to find a grosser collection of poorly parsed lies and unsubstantiated slander.

Carlos Danger
12-06-2006, 04:52 PM
Yes, a mixed bag

Much better than it used to be, mind

As more "normal" people discover it and begin to participate, so the kooks and perverts who used to infest the place are pushed aside

WFHermans
12-06-2006, 04:56 PM
Don't miss the spoof on Wikipedia:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Often they are more accurate than Wikipedia, and they're always funnier.

Boleslaw
12-06-2006, 04:58 PM
Wikipedia is crap whenever anyone else but Petr cites it.

Yeah Fade, you quote it all the time, yet when Petr quoted it during his discussion with you about the Lombards on the Old Phora, you dismissed it as nonsense. :rolleyes:

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-06-2006, 04:59 PM
I've found wikipedia to be intersting and most important, concise and to the point because it is written by the people instead of elitists.

They also have moderaters to stop random idiot's from posting whatever they want.

Arminius
12-06-2006, 05:03 PM
If you think the info is incorrect, you can change it. I like that. Also it is a good place for sources.

koch curve
12-06-2006, 05:04 PM
It's technical and scientific articles are good but its political/biography sections are pure propaganda, generated by overzealous 'editors' and of course guided along the PC line by the wiki staff.

For instance, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong) entry on Mao Zedong is laughable. I'd be hard-pressed to find a grosser collection of poorly parsed lies and unsubstantiated slander.

i forgot you have this fanatical attribution of infallibility to any communist leader

Jimbo Gomez
12-06-2006, 06:03 PM
I have it from a very good source that the site is infested with kikopedophiles.

Hachiko
12-06-2006, 06:05 PM
If you think the info is incorrect, you can change it. I like that. Also it is a good place for sources.
Yeah, there's nothing like an encyclopedia that lets you rewrite history. :D
I usually use it to reveal endings of movies I can't afford to go see.

Arminius
12-06-2006, 06:20 PM
Yeah, there's nothing like an encyclopedia that lets you rewrite history. :D

Na. Good thing about it is that tons of people use it, so incorrect info will either be sited for deletion or change. Also it has nifty "citation needed" thing where people who write stuff didn't cite their source.

Hrolf Kraki
12-06-2006, 06:54 PM
I think it's a great place to look up anything on the web. I love it! Suppose I need to find out something about the Battle of Tours, or what the Inuit language is like, or something about pop culture; wikipedia has it. Although I do realize that some topics have biases, but those will always be around no matter what source you use.

Hachiko
12-06-2006, 06:57 PM
Na. Good thing about it is that tons of people use it, so incorrect info will either be sited for deletion or change. Also it has nifty "citation needed" thing where people who write stuff didn't cite their source.
True. I am a wikijunkie which makes me a kike-a-like-o-pedo or something like that by default. :rofl:

Vasily Zaitsev
12-06-2006, 06:59 PM
You get what you pay for.

Arrow Cross
12-06-2006, 07:01 PM
It's technical and scientific articles are good but its political/biography sections are pure propaganda, generated by overzealous 'editors' and of course guided along the PC line by the wiki staff.
Agreed, the further we go back in history, the more accurate Wikipedia gets.
It helps me out with a few things though, time to time.

koch curve
12-06-2006, 07:02 PM
its obviously no replacement for good old fashioned sources and books but its great for brushing up on new and old subjects

WFHermans
12-06-2006, 08:09 PM
Wikipedia is indeed the perfect source to find endings of movies, saves you the trouble to buy, download, or worst of all, watch them. :)

Hachiko
12-06-2006, 08:15 PM
Wikipedia is indeed the perfect source to find endings of movies, saves you the trouble to buy, download, or worst of all, watch them. :)
Especially when some cheesy, poorly shot horror movie is being touted as having some grand "surprise ending".

Carlos Danger
12-06-2006, 08:19 PM
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11582

WFHermans
12-06-2006, 08:21 PM
The biggest rip-off is the "open ending". Imagine spending hours watching a flick for that. They tried that with Archangel where the son of Stalin goes to Moscow on his way to try and take over the Kremlin, then as he gets off the train THE END. Cheered by the critics as "brilliant" because the "audience can give its own interpreetation", blah blah fuck you kikes.

Hachiko
12-06-2006, 08:26 PM
Yeah, the critics can laud me taking a big fat dump. If you can't wrap up a movie in a concise manner in 90 minutes, make it a 2hr. movie. If you can't do it in 2, make it a 3 hour epic. If you can't resolve your story in that time (unless like LOTR you've already announced a trilogy) well then you should be shot.

Daniel Shays
12-06-2006, 08:31 PM
The biggest rip-off is the "open ending". Imagine spending hours watching a flick for that. The tried that with Archangel where the son of Stalin goes to Moscow on his way to try and take over the Kremlin, then as he gets off the train THE END. Cheered by the critics as "brilliant" because the "audience can give its own interpreetation", blah blah fuck you kikes.
In the film version, Stalin is shot and presumably killed by the prostitute. That is an even more pathetic ending.

Johnson
12-06-2006, 08:33 PM
Coleslaw said it best - Wikipedo is best for introduction to a subject.

Zrinski
12-06-2006, 08:54 PM
If you think the info is incorrect, you can change it. I like that. Also it is a good place for sources.

Yes and then someone comes along and again changes it. Now there are moderators but they again don't insure the info will be correct and neutral to the point. As Wikipedia policy alone cites it's policies are "verifiability" and the so-called "neutrality" (in translation what most people there consider it "neutral").

Helios Panoptes
12-06-2006, 09:00 PM
It is useful for a brief summary of a subject in which one is not terribly interested, as long as that subject is not remotely political. However, the articles vary in quality to an unacceptable degree.

It also has links to sources and is useful for looking up pop culture references, which I never get because, as my profile indicates, I live in deep space.

Nyx
12-06-2006, 09:11 PM
Regardless of the accuracy of the information, most of the entries are poorly written.

Berianidze
12-07-2006, 12:17 AM
i forgot you have this fanatical attribution of infallibility to any communist leader
No, that article has been inconsistent even with noted anti-communist Historians. The Stalin article a while back had some very blatant lies that had no possible means of being substantiated by historical fact.

Zrinski
12-07-2006, 12:17 AM
Regardless of the accuracy of the information, most of the entries are poorly written.

Indeed. In my short period at Wikipedia I have found astonishing amount of grammatical mistakes in almost every article I reviewed. Not to mention those which were totally wrong and even extremely biased, especially subjects about historical or recent (politically connected) events.

il ragno
12-07-2006, 01:41 AM
It's ok for general information that doesn't inflame pro and con passions.

On any subject in which you hold to a minority viewpoint, it inevitably comes up "worthless", "unserious", a "propaganda tool", etc. So what else is new?

shanti22
12-07-2006, 05:57 AM
I was wondering what do you think about Wikipedia? Do you think it is good? Is it objective? Is it fair?

I personally have come upon that this supposed "encyclopedia" is no better than any other biased politically correct forum. Furthermore I've come upon situations where if there are enough people who advocate a certain assertation that no matter how wrong and non-factual this claim is that this is enforced, protected and opposing members even blocked and banned.

My opinion of Wikipedia has extremely diminished over these few last weeks.

It's complete BS. Anyone can edit it. And if they get the info wrong, it could take weeks for someone to come along and correct it. Either way any one article will lean Left or Right. :(

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-07-2006, 06:03 AM
It's complete BS. Anyone can edit it. And if they get the info wrong, it could take weeks for someone to come along and correct it. Either way any one article will lean Left or Right. :(
No. They have moderaters. The moderaters correct stuff that is just rambling with no citation.

shanti22
12-07-2006, 06:20 AM
No. They have moderaters. The moderaters correct stuff that is just rambling with no citation.

I know they have moderators, but for the less populated pages, people can get away with writing alot of bias stuff. I've also seen people edit out legit stuff for no reason. The mods aren't always helpful either. They can have their own bias.

Arminius
12-07-2006, 07:20 AM
Theres also a log of what's been edited and by whom.

shanti22
12-07-2006, 07:32 AM
History section, I know! :thanks:

Vasily Zaitsev
12-07-2006, 06:06 PM
No. They have moderaters. The moderaters correct stuff that is just rambling with no citation.

Also known as "Wikipedophiles"

Heavens to Betsy
12-07-2006, 06:45 PM
It's a pretty useful tool for when you're feeling lazy, or just looking to get some superficial information on something.
It's excellent for pop culture.

Zrinski
12-07-2006, 11:15 PM
On the subject. :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvA2_wX1p4o&NR

Edit: Another one....this one summaries it excellently http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcdC0af4jJY