The study was flawed, you now know that now as two people have dissected it for you. but you persist with the folly. Frankly you deserve WP: the world's largest dump of unreliable facts for use by idiots.
I looked up a German Theologian the other day. The WP article was created in 2003 as a c&p of the 1911 EB article. No improvement has been made since to the WP article except to add some references to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, and a couple of other pre 1910 sources. Modern scholarship discounts much of the 1911 EB article. EB has been updated WP has not. You know 113 years is a long time to wait for an update.
I get a good laugh. I also don't correct it. Any one that is looking at wikipedia for reliable information deserves what they get. Eventually even lazy ass journalists and plagiarizing students will realize the folly. Until then "rock on dude". Did you hear about Jagged85 he made >100,000 edits to WP many of which had no bearing to the sources he quoted and in many case the sources were fictional too. He specialized in Mathematics, History, Philosophy, Medicine, and Literature. Much of what he wrote was invented. WP knew about this in 2008, but it wasn't until 2012 that he was banned (for falsifying articles on computer games), In 2010 they had an attempt to clean up the articles. Many of those that looked at it thought that the best thing to do was to stub out any articles that he'd made large contributions to. But they couldn't quite bite the bullet and stub out Number Theory and similar articles. Meanwhile Jagged85 continued to make his falsifying edits for a further 2 years adding an extra 30,000 or so. The 2010 cleanup effort fizzled out a few weeks after it started. So they are still finding sub-articles on subjects such as Evolution that were Jagged85'd.
WP treats newspapers as a reliable source.
You wrong about EBs reliability vs WP. Perhaps you are relying on the well debunked Nature article of some 8 years ago. The articles chosen were mainly mainstream science articles, and they treated all errors similarly regardless of severity. So for example a factual error such as saying that Origin of the Species was published on the 25 November 1859, counted the same as saying that its author was Charles Dickens. OK not quite so blatant but I'm sure you get the point.
One FA had for three years "in 1345 during the reign of Richard II".
You state that WP is 100x bigger than EB as if that is a good thing. However, that EB doesn't have 1000s of My Little Pony articles doesn't make WP better. Millions of WP articles are one sentence stubs that will never be expanded, and in themselves are worse than useless, as the Google juice pushes sites that may expand on the information down the listings.
Example a stub article on some species of Lichen, that was constructed by some bot scrapping a biological database is unlikely to be expanded on WP. A site dedicated to the study of lichens may well do. WP and its mirror scrapper sites will ensure that the lichen site is off the first google hits page.
Play the WP game press the random article link 20 times and see how many 1-2 sentence stubs you find, disambig page, and pages which are plastered with problem templates. Don't tell me its a work in progress I want information today that isn't loaded with bullshit and ignorance.
Maybe not necessarily but overwhelmingly amateur. But its not amateurs that are the problem it is people with an over inflated opinion of their abilities. It is the problem that the writers do not have sufficient command of the subject, and the reviews are equally ignorant. Copying swathes of text from sources chopping it up and regurgitating the results does not make an educational resource. Its like leaf cutter ants that chop out bits of leaves that are then dragged back to the nest for others to chew into a paste which is then fed to a fungus. Here is an example of where WP has missed the point 'cos they are too enamored with gossip.
The amount of wrong added to WP increases hourly, by the time that you have fixed one wrong a hundred other wrongs have been added. I don't mean POV wrongs but factual wrongs. Then if you fix the wrong someone the following day comes and unfixes it. You do no one any favours by fixing the crap, as that just hides the fact that the place is full of wrong.
Hercules had an easier task of cleaning out the stables than we have of fixing wrong on WP.
I'm fully aware of the etymology. Just because the pages aren't in chronological order does not make it NOT a blog. If I arrange pages on my site alphabetically does that make it not a blog? I have a 4500+ site the front page displays things in chronological order, if I promote them there. Does that make it a blog. Does only posting 1:10 pages to the front page make it NOT a blog?
BTW there is nothing in the WP description of a blog that says that WP is not a blog.
Many blogs provide commentary on a particular subject; others function as more personal online diaries; others function more as online brand advertising of a particular individual or company. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, Web pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability of readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important contribution to the popularity of many blogs.
If only that were so. The average visitor to WP spend about a minute on a page. They aren't reading, they aren't researching, they are either factoid confirming, or they are grabbing something to paste somewhere else.
You need a changelog on WP when you want to know when a specific bit of crap was added and by which anon. WP is always going to more behind the times than Britannica. WP requires its editors to seek out multiple published sources. Most of the crap they is in books written 50-150 years ago. An expert on a subject is not limited in that respect. NOTE: that almost all taxonomy in WP are based on works written prior to Watson and Crick's discovery of DNA.
Neither do you know what a blog is it seems. Some of the more ardent contributors to wikipedia say that they do so because what they write there gets more eyeballs than if they were to write it on their own site. Effectively they are adding articles on their chosen subject to wikipedia simple because it has Google juice. Why write a page on my-subject.net which gets 20 views a year when you can put it on WP and get 500 views a year?
Why the fuck should we work for free for Google, or do some one's homework for them? Why should I do it unpaid and also have to put up with a bunch of know nothing fuckwits at the same time?
WP is a joke it becomes more and more so every day. Contrary to it improving what is happening is that the people overlooking the site are diminshing. It mostly runs now with scriptkiddies that can remove SUCKS COCKS and NIGGA but are unable to distinguish crap like "By 1345, during Richard II reign" in their Feature Articles. The good articles even manage to place national parks in the wrong country.
You do know that he was acquitted on appeal in 2005 don't you? Or did you read the WP page and get a false impression. There maybe 100 links to references about legal issues, but if you keep deleting the final outcome...
Self promotion, political manipulation, corporate puffery, and revenge. All masquerading as some objective truth. We should always remember that Wikipedia is to knowledge, what arsenic is to nutrition.
the Wikipedia community has strong mechanisms in place to deal with this, from the famous cry of [citation needed] to the rigorous checks and standards put in place by its hierarchy of editors and admins.
This is so very wrong. The rigorous checks are non existent; for three years a WP FA boldly stated that Richard II was king of England in 1345 (22 years before he was born); other articles state that Edward III divide England up amongst his sons. Palpable nonsense is everywhere and mostly goes unchecked. Did any of Qworty's revenge edits get checked, no they did not, and now that everyone knows that he was engaged in a massive amount of falsification on the site has anything been done to fix it? No it hasn't. Jagged85 100,000+ edits in History, Mathematics, Literature, Philosophy, Medicine loads of which were found to be a falsification of source. There are still 1000s of articles unchecked.
Then you've not been using the site properly.
The issue isn't so much that there is porn on wikipedia, but that it flashes across your screen when you least expect it. It is getting to the point where you cannot search for any media file without some pornographic image being included in the first few results.
The Nature article is full on bullshit. It isn't even close to an accurate appraisal or comparison between the two works. You'll find the debunking of the nature article all over the web if you chose to look. As an example of 18 months the article on NURBS was wrong in that it had mixed up cN and gN continuity. The history articles are abysmal one would be hard pressed to find one of them of any reasonable length that wasn't riddled with errors. Large chunks of it are copied verbatim from 17th and 18th century histories, with all the errors and slanted views of the period. Some 8000+ pages have been tainted by an editor with 60,000+ edits who has systematically misrepresented, over egged, or simply lied to remove references to Western Europe discoveries in Science, Mathematics, Medicine, History, Philosophy, and Art. You can help clean up the crap here. The pages on organisms frequently have photos that aren't of the organism that the page is about.
The problem is that any re-user of a multimedia file had better ascertain for themselves whether the file is actually free to use, and that it wasn't something that some 14 yo uploaded from the web and slapped a CC license on.
If some company has reused a copyright image, the rights holder is going to go after the company not the dumb kid that uploaded it. That they found it on a website isn't going to play out in court.
The Wikipedia article on the case goes into some detail.
And do they mention that there has never been a supreme court judgment on the issue?
The judiciary are adept in coming to a justification for what they want to allow and what they don't want to allow. In the the Bridgeman case Corel performed their own digitization using the Bridgeman slides. An equivalent act would have been if the wiki-thief had made prints from the digital files and then craeted his own digital files from the prints.
However, in this case the physical jpegs the thief responsible simple purloined the files belonging to another. If that was the situation that came up before Kaplan I doubt he'd have found in favour of people rifling through the computer files of another.
Slashdot Mirror
They'd have to remove the infestation of moonbats first.
His Walesness lives in London, England.
The study was flawed, you now know that now as two people have dissected it for you. but you persist with the folly. Frankly you deserve WP: the world's largest dump of unreliable facts for use by idiots.
I looked up a German Theologian the other day. The WP article was created in 2003 as a c&p of the 1911 EB article. No improvement has been made since to the WP article except to add some references to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, and a couple of other pre 1910 sources. Modern scholarship discounts much of the 1911 EB article. EB has been updated WP has not. You know 113 years is a long time to wait for an update.
I get a good laugh. I also don't correct it. Any one that is looking at wikipedia for reliable information deserves what they get. Eventually even lazy ass journalists and plagiarizing students will realize the folly. Until then "rock on dude". Did you hear about Jagged85 he made >100,000 edits to WP many of which had no bearing to the sources he quoted and in many case the sources were fictional too. He specialized in Mathematics, History, Philosophy, Medicine, and Literature. Much of what he wrote was invented. WP knew about this in 2008, but it wasn't until 2012 that he was banned (for falsifying articles on computer games), In 2010 they had an attempt to clean up the articles. Many of those that looked at it thought that the best thing to do was to stub out any articles that he'd made large contributions to. But they couldn't quite bite the bullet and stub out Number Theory and similar articles. Meanwhile Jagged85 continued to make his falsifying edits for a further 2 years adding an extra 30,000 or so. The 2010 cleanup effort fizzled out a few weeks after it started. So they are still finding sub-articles on subjects such as Evolution that were Jagged85'd.
WP treats newspapers as a reliable source. You wrong about EBs reliability vs WP. Perhaps you are relying on the well debunked Nature article of some 8 years ago. The articles chosen were mainly mainstream science articles, and they treated all errors similarly regardless of severity. So for example a factual error such as saying that Origin of the Species was published on the 25 November 1859, counted the same as saying that its author was Charles Dickens. OK not quite so blatant but I'm sure you get the point. One FA had for three years "in 1345 during the reign of Richard II". You state that WP is 100x bigger than EB as if that is a good thing. However, that EB doesn't have 1000s of My Little Pony articles doesn't make WP better. Millions of WP articles are one sentence stubs that will never be expanded, and in themselves are worse than useless, as the Google juice pushes sites that may expand on the information down the listings. Example a stub article on some species of Lichen, that was constructed by some bot scrapping a biological database is unlikely to be expanded on WP. A site dedicated to the study of lichens may well do. WP and its mirror scrapper sites will ensure that the lichen site is off the first google hits page. Play the WP game press the random article link 20 times and see how many 1-2 sentence stubs you find, disambig page, and pages which are plastered with problem templates. Don't tell me its a work in progress I want information today that isn't loaded with bullshit and ignorance.
Maybe not necessarily but overwhelmingly amateur. But its not amateurs that are the problem it is people with an over inflated opinion of their abilities. It is the problem that the writers do not have sufficient command of the subject, and the reviews are equally ignorant. Copying swathes of text from sources chopping it up and regurgitating the results does not make an educational resource. Its like leaf cutter ants that chop out bits of leaves that are then dragged back to the nest for others to chew into a paste which is then fed to a fungus. Here is an example of where WP has missed the point 'cos they are too enamored with gossip.
The amount of wrong added to WP increases hourly, by the time that you have fixed one wrong a hundred other wrongs have been added. I don't mean POV wrongs but factual wrongs. Then if you fix the wrong someone the following day comes and unfixes it. You do no one any favours by fixing the crap, as that just hides the fact that the place is full of wrong.
Hercules had an easier task of cleaning out the stables than we have of fixing wrong on WP.
BTW there is nothing in the WP description of a blog that says that WP is not a blog.
See WP for what it really is.
Just how corrupt is your vocabulary? Volunteering does not usually equate to doing freebies for commercial interests.
If only that were so. The average visitor to WP spend about a minute on a page. They aren't reading, they aren't researching, they are either factoid confirming, or they are grabbing something to paste somewhere else.
You need a changelog on WP when you want to know when a specific bit of crap was added and by which anon. WP is always going to more behind the times than Britannica. WP requires its editors to seek out multiple published sources. Most of the crap they is in books written 50-150 years ago. An expert on a subject is not limited in that respect. NOTE: that almost all taxonomy in WP are based on works written prior to Watson and Crick's discovery of DNA.
Neither do you know what a blog is it seems. Some of the more ardent contributors to wikipedia say that they do so because what they write there gets more eyeballs than if they were to write it on their own site. Effectively they are adding articles on their chosen subject to wikipedia simple because it has Google juice. Why write a page on my-subject.net which gets 20 views a year when you can put it on WP and get 500 views a year?
WP is a joke it becomes more and more so every day. Contrary to it improving what is happening is that the people overlooking the site are diminshing. It mostly runs now with scriptkiddies that can remove SUCKS COCKS and NIGGA but are unable to distinguish crap like "By 1345, during Richard II reign" in their Feature Articles. The good articles even manage to place national parks in the wrong country.
You do know that he was acquitted on appeal in 2005 don't you? Or did you read the WP page and get a false impression. There maybe 100 links to references about legal issues, but if you keep deleting the final outcome ...
Self promotion, political manipulation, corporate puffery, and revenge. All masquerading as some objective truth. We should always remember that Wikipedia is to knowledge, what arsenic is to nutrition.
This is so very wrong. The rigorous checks are non existent; for three years a WP FA boldly stated that Richard II was king of England in 1345 (22 years before he was born); other articles state that Edward III divide England up amongst his sons. Palpable nonsense is everywhere and mostly goes unchecked. Did any of Qworty's revenge edits get checked, no they did not, and now that everyone knows that he was engaged in a massive amount of falsification on the site has anything been done to fix it? No it hasn't. Jagged85 100,000+ edits in History, Mathematics, Literature, Philosophy, Medicine loads of which were found to be a falsification of source. There are still 1000s of articles unchecked.
Whether your Dad whacks you off whilst you have your head in the sand, or not is really besides the point for this discussion.
Just one eh? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=forefinger&fulltext=Search
And what if they aren't searching for porn? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=coddle&fulltext=Search
Link did you want? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=bell%20tolling&fulltext=Search&profile=images&redirs=0 What is most amusing about all of this is the NSFW monikers that people are adding, cos you know that sometimes even if you want porn, you know that now isn't the best time to be viewing it.
Then you've not been using the site properly. The issue isn't so much that there is porn on wikipedia, but that it flashes across your screen when you least expect it. It is getting to the point where you cannot search for any media file without some pornographic image being included in the first few results.
The Nature article is full on bullshit. It isn't even close to an accurate appraisal or comparison between the two works. You'll find the debunking of the nature article all over the web if you chose to look. As an example of 18 months the article on NURBS was wrong in that it had mixed up cN and gN continuity. The history articles are abysmal one would be hard pressed to find one of them of any reasonable length that wasn't riddled with errors. Large chunks of it are copied verbatim from 17th and 18th century histories, with all the errors and slanted views of the period. Some 8000+ pages have been tainted by an editor with 60,000+ edits who has systematically misrepresented, over egged, or simply lied to remove references to Western Europe discoveries in Science, Mathematics, Medicine, History, Philosophy, and Art. You can help clean up the crap here. The pages on organisms frequently have photos that aren't of the organism that the page is about.
The problem is that any re-user of a multimedia file had better ascertain for themselves whether the file is actually free to use, and that it wasn't something that some 14 yo uploaded from the web and slapped a CC license on. If some company has reused a copyright image, the rights holder is going to go after the company not the dumb kid that uploaded it. That they found it on a website isn't going to play out in court.
And do they mention that there has never been a supreme court judgment on the issue?
The judiciary are adept in coming to a justification for what they want to allow and what they don't want to allow. In the the Bridgeman case Corel performed their own digitization using the Bridgeman slides. An equivalent act would have been if the wiki-thief had made prints from the digital files and then craeted his own digital files from the prints.
However, in this case the physical jpegs the thief responsible simple purloined the files belonging to another. If that was the situation that came up before Kaplan I doubt he'd have found in favour of people rifling through the computer files of another.