"Wikipedia" may be the dumbest idea I have ever heard of. I’ve been ignoring this "encyclopedia" because I keep hearing that anyone can input data. So today I went to Wiki and confirmed this. The following appears on the Wiki front page: “Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”
Why in hell would I want to use an encyclopedia that “anyone can edit”?
As a simple test (and I realize that most of you Wiki fans know all of this), I searched for terrorism. Under “Responses to terrorism”, I edited the first few sentences.
I clicked “Edit”, and then “Save Page” when I was finished. Here is the modified text:
"Responses to terrorism are broad in scope. They can include eating peanut butter sandwiches, and candied yams. The term counter-terrorism has a narrower connotation, implying that it is directed at terrorist sandwich eaters."
I went back to the Wiki front page and again searched for “terrorism”, and then clicked on Section 5, “Tactics”. Under “Responses to terrorism,” there was my bullshit text.
What a fucking joke.
I’ve never used Wiki before today, and I never will again. How could anyone trust this garbage? Are you going to trust someone to review the terrorism pages and fix them? Other encyclopedias are edited by scholars, historians, professional researchers, and the like. There is a rigid vetting process. Wiki is edited by who? The Shaved Apes.
Stop using Wiki, fools.
25 comments:
totally agree with u man, wiki is sure unreliable due to the ease of editin it. but do u noe ur bullshit editing is gone?
Yeah, it was gone within five minutes. Does the original poster get a message whenever an edit is made, or what?
I can't believe anyone would use Wiki.
It's akin to just walking out onto the sidewalk and asking any dumbfuck the answer to some question -- and then relying on the answer.
It's mindboggling.
Indeed. They, the editors, rule over which content to show and which to edit out. And that article about wikipedia being a reliable source is as preposterous as people who begin a sentence with, "according to wikipedia..."
Absolutely. I mistrust anyone who cites Wikipedia as a source. Teachers are finally starting to warn students about this problem.
A hist prof warned us as of '06 that the sharpest dangers are found in 'obscure' pages that get little traffic yet are politically charged, say the Rhodesian bushwars, the Romanian Iron Gaurd, the croat Ustashi, etc.
But, to this day shes the only professor i've seen warn us about the cunthoddery of wikipedia 'editors'.
By the way, google scholar is best for undergrads.
I can't say i read your blog, but fuck user generated content and fuck wikipedia.
i think we should fuck with the wiki users by finding the most connon words searched for and relentlessly edit it till it become permanant the best way to do this is by kicking the word then tell evry one we can find to edit in the same bullshit answer such as 9/11: a bunch of guys with box cutter made norad stand down for 80 min while they hijack 4 planes and crash then. all conceived by a guy living in a cave
I had the opposite experience: I'm a specialist and I went to correct some rediculous statement about my specialty in Wikipedia. Some 13 year old started an edit war with me, the admin stepped in, admitted she knew nothing of the subject, but sided with the 13 year old because he was her "buddy". When I debated the subject on the discussion page - she then accused me of attacking the other editor and blocked me. She reverted my edits even if I just corrected spelling.
I looked up this admin and found she had her own vanity page she edited it herself and is promoting her book which sells used on amazon for $2.75 a copy (i.e. not much demand for it LOL).
Thanks for allowing me to vent.
yeah I completely agree. Fuck Wikipedia.
wow you little boys really are rebels eh. Fuck this Fuck that, lol grow up. At least anyone with intelligence knows enough not to believe those with a crude education in english.
Wiki is a good general resource. You can always check the references. Wiki also has the advantage of real time updates, over books made yearly.
I bet this post gets deleted.
Wow... two morons in a row fighting on opposite sides of a debate. It's like politics or something.
The real problem with Wikipedia is not the fact that anyone can edit it, it's the nonsense policies like "No original research" or the idea that a video recording of a panel at a convention cannot be used as a reliable source for what someone said, but a magazine article can.
If Stephen Hawking wanted to log in to Wikipedia and correct an article on black holes or quantum gravity theory, he couldn't. He'd have to publish it in a book and have someone else log in and quote him.
Also: "NPOV" supposedly means "Neutral Point of View" -- realistically, it means "Mainstream popular party line"
Oh, and BTW, for the "little boys" twit: Use of the word "fuck" does not make one stupid. Assuming that someone choosing plain, simple, honest vulgarities over snobbish self-stroking "clever" attacks, however, *is* a strong indicator of your own insecurity about your perceived intelligence. Stop worrying that everyone will figure out that you're a fraud: they will. Just accept it.
It is fun to fuck with wikipedia. Today I "edited" their bullshit article on the dept of homeland security. Sure, they changed it back, but not before I saved the article with the changes I had made. By the way, FUCK Janet Nepolitano the big ugly MAHOO.
FUCK THE BLOG AUTHOR
I don't live by wikipedia, however, I am with Dodger on this. The whole stephen hawkings example is nearly enough to push as a validity of wikipedia. You NEED real sources, although, just because something is published doesn't make it absolute truth. Of course history is biased. You have to admit, though, that the idea and intention of Wikipedia is a great idea. Plain and simple, stupid policies make it tougher for factual information to become readily available. ..so I don't say fuck wikipedia, I say fuck stupid D BAGS who purposely twist intelect just to mess with people (not the bog author, he was just trying to prove a point).
Wikipedia is an extremist anti-Christian site especially against fundamentalists. You will be labeled Truthforlife instantly if you revert pages like Coast to Coast AM to versions exposing it's anti-Christian bias. Look up "novangelis" on wikipedia, he's a sanctioned cyber-stalker who flamed on other cyberstalker adminstrators into trying to help him persecute his victim that first seems to have come on as ExaminerofTruth. Novangelis started an edit war with him to get rid of any mention of religion with regards to Arthur C. Clarke. If you report Nonvangelis you'll instantly be banned as being him and no report against Novagenlis is allowed to be made. The cyber-stalkers helping him are numerous and adminstrators often: Petersymonds, Gogo dodo, VirtualSteve and a few others. They are all over the macroevolution, evolution, darwin, big bang, abiogenesis, biology, atheism and skepticism pages. It's a cyber-stalker / propaganda machine for traditional Darwinism, the big bang and atheism. Guess why: It's controlled by Jimmy Wales, an admitted atheist.
Wikipedia is retarded. You try to add something, and 5 minutes later it gets changed back by some anal fuckwad. Even though it was perfectly valid content, they still change it back.
What they should say is;
"The encyclopedia anyone can edit, but only if we think it's good enough".
And they seriously expect donations?
They ask for donations???? SERIOUSLY???
"Well guys, we know you do all the editing and thinking and researching, and you take all the risk by trusting what you read on our site because any fuckwads can edit it... We know how tough that is and all, but seriously, the Wiki staff is having a really rough time doing absolutely nothing in their cubicles. We think we should be making some money off your ideas. Coffee and donuts are getting expensive. Please help us out."
WOW.
And everyone acts like Wiki is the all-knowing brain that was shared by every god from all the religions that ever existed.
Another thing I hate is that whenever you google something (you get loads of links that way and you can figure out what to trust and what to ignore based on how many trusted sites have the same information) Wikipedia is always the first or second link after the sponsored links. WHY??? Just cuz they have all of your keywords? FUCK keywords. Google should just omit all Wiki links from their searches. I'd trust www.urbandictionary.com before wikipedia.
1. To the guy above who takes issue with cursing, fuck you.
2. As for the sourcing issue, that's a big problem, but it's secondary. For instance, if a 12-year-old kid put up a page, and Stephen Hawking couldn't edit it, one of these problems is much larger than the other.
There's a reason no journalist at a reputable newspaper will cite Wikipedia as a source -- they'd be laughed out of the profession and/or fired. This wouldn't change if trusted experts had better access. The concept is flawed.
becoming increasingly annoyed by wikipedia, i googled "fuck wikipedia", hoping for an online petition "i support this proposal to fuck wikipedia"... first result was an wikipedia article...
Anonymous said on 4/14/2009 11:24:00 PM
"FUCK THE BLOG AUTHOR"
And a big hearty FUCK YOU to you anonymous piece of shit!
Shaved Ape, you're the man! Keep up the good work and continue to fight that piece of shit Jimmy Wales and his army of retards. You have my full support!
Posted by: Alegratt
A friend of mine -- someone I respect -- laid it out this way: "Wikipedia is a good starting point."
He's right about that. In my searches I often hit Wikipedia first, but I can't rely on anything I find.
I believe that sums up Wikipedia. It serves a purpose. And, only dumb little kids or stupid people would trust it.
The original poster is right:
Fuck Wikipedia!
Also, fuck you Bushranger, (one of the smart-ass mother fuckers that calls himself an "Admin."
That's right, fuck you Bushranger! You fucking smart off with your pencil-dick bullshit, and hide behind your computer. If people could find you, they would kick your fucking chicken-shit ass!
In addition, those that say people should fuck with Wikipedia are right. Tell everyone you know to create a bullshit account, and start fucking up their worthless shit-ass site!
Remember:
Fuck Wikipedia!
Fuck the "Admin," "Bushranger"
That's right! Say it again:
Fuck Wikipedia!
Fuck you "Bushranger," you faggot-ass mother fucker!
Kudos to you Shaved Ape!
Keep up the good work:
Fuck Wikipedia!
Give sobriety a chance, my friend.
Who cares if wikipedia is anti christian. There are so many pro christian websites and groups. Christianity is a big bunch of poisonous bullshit that controls peoples minds and keeps them from critical thinking which would make them realize how fucking lame their idea of a loving god who will send all who dont agree with him to an endless fiery grave Fuck you crusaders. Put your energy into your time on the earth for good, rather than trying to make other people believe your bullshit. Fuck out of this thread with your christian bullshit. go to hell. Evolution is real. Christianity is poison.
"Give sobriety a chance, my friend."
What is this bullshit?!! I thought you were against Wikipedia!
I share in "Anonymous 11/16/2011 06:54:00 PM" sentiments, besides you just gotta vent sometime you know what I mean?
I definitely wait for the day that karma comes back to bite Wikipedia and all the dipshits who are ruining it in the ass.
So for those who hate Wikipedia, continue the rants and keep up the good work.
And for those who support it, get lost in a volcano and fall in!
Post by: HelloStuart of TV.com
Post a Comment