Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Founder Sees Serious Quality Problems
Juha-Matti Laurio writes "The Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has acknowledged there are real quality problems with the online project. From the article: 'Meanwhile, criticism from outside the Wikipedia camp has been rebuffed with a ferocious blend of irrationality and vigor that's almost unprecedented in our experience: if you thought Apple, Amiga, Mozilla or OS/2 fans were er, ... passionate, you haven't met a wiki-fiddler.'"
It's clearly benefited Slashdot. The story quality and lack of dupes proves it.
These people still can't hold a candle to Jack Thompson.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
All it says is "Drunken Irish Layabout" and there's a picture of Leo DiCaprio.
Prepare for the Keith World Order
The real truth:
a shdot
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Sl
Actually there's only one step. You don't need an account. Gee, what other site do I know that allows anonymous random folks to spout off nonsense... *looks around*
But then again I wasn't drunk and high while I was reading wikipedia....
How ironic that I find that is the best time to fire up a random page in Wikipedia.
It's not like the Register doesn't have accuracy issues either.
Test your net with Netalyzr
This was a wiki edit of the original comment.
Some people do have really serious doubts about the credibility of wikipedia content.
On the other hand, wikipedia people do have doubts about these other lads as well. Hmmm, looks like circular distrust to me...
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
Nobody's bothered correcting it? Yes they have - you just said you did!
- Chuq
Register: Wikipedia Inaccurate, Badly-Written
Pots, kettles war over who's the blackest
[Story body here]
Wikipedia actually has two entries about Slashdot but I hear the second one is a dupe.
The parent comment is not a copy of the same poster's comment with the sense of no statements reversed. A rather plain sort of trolling, although it is not actually trolling. :)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
We went back and forth a few times but we eventually agreed to combine that postive and negative effect lists, and now it is all settled.
What really happened was you all went out to gather empirical evidence and everyone forgot where the article was.
by the Uncyclopedia as the one true source for all knowledge.
The Wikipedia block user interface specifically suggests to "keep blocks in these ranges to 15 minutes or less" when blocking a vandal within AOL's IP range. No other ISP in the world receives this sort of favoritism from Wikipedia
(6) The idiot who thinks he's funny. In fact, so funny, that _everyone_ should find his stand-up comedy act when seriously searching for information. In fact, heck, everyone should be mandated by law to read his jokes, but finding them instead of actual info is almost an acceptable substitute.
I still remember one article in the German wikipedia... about cloning didgeridoos. Complete with a picture of tiny little digeridoos in test tubes, and a paragraph about how they live longer than the ones born naturally. About a year later, it was still there. (Now it's finally gone, though.)
OK, so it's a sorta the bastard child of your points 3 and 4. Except while the PR professional knows they're subverting and polluting a resource for profit, and the vandal knows they're defacing, the "funny" idiot might actually think he's doing a public service.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.