9. I got scolded. Either it's automated or someone is up watching...
-- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will normally be reverted quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --fvw* 11:59, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --fvw* 12:02, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)--
48. And changing a 2004 quake to 1812 or 2304 is easily spotted...all I'm
saying is DON'T RELY on Wikipedia info because it is not reliable unless you source out every item line by line, because not-so-obvious and incorrect changes are ery easy to do and do not always get caught. The Iraq site I was referring to as of 3 days ago still said Hussein "kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq" in '98 and "wouldn't allow UN inspectors into Iraq" in 2003.
8. what the hell, you're right! why on earth is edit page on there!?
for people wanting to know how to see it, it's around midnight january 23, 2005. go into history and just cycle back through the previous versions (enter a history and start flipping through the <prev, next> links towards the top).
this is a profoundly stupid option to leave open to the public. i know there must be a moderator checking, but... can't check everything at everytime. stupid.
well scratch wikipedia from my trustable sources... there's a waste of a website.
11. Ummmm... that is the whole point of a Wiki. Everyone CAN contribute.
Edited on Sun Jan-23-05 07:18 AM by BlueEyedSon
It leverages the knowledge of (potentially) all readers. Judging from the above exchange there are checks and balances. Perhaps there is a moderator for each page and/or subject area who gets alerted on changes.
I guess it's like democracy.... a small minority (even one person) can work within the free & open system to screw everything up for the others!
18. so you believe wanton editing of all reference books is valid?
get off your democracy trip and deal with facts. facts. facts, got that? any tom, dick, and harry should be able to walk into an encyclopedia printing presses at any time and change anything? because all-mighty democracy sounds pretty we should allow this? just because it can be fixed doesn't mean this should be allowed!
stupid. unbelievably, fucking stupid website. be gone wikipedia.
From the looks of things, "wanton editing" is eventually discovered and corrected by the wanton-editing police!
BTW, a Wiki is just another model for participatory information dissemination, and your comparison to an old-fashioned hardbound encyclopedia is inappropriate. It's more like a group blog or "about.com". Who told you it was equivalent to a "reference book"?
The first page says it all: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
I will continue to trust Wikipedia, for the last two years it's been invaluable to me for getting accuurate information on a variety of subjects I've been researching. I've never come across inaccurate information there.
i obviously see the potential for misinformation in this. whole troops of freepers regularly 'updating' wiki to 'the correct facts.' they have no lives and thus all the time to waste on shit like this. uh-uh, no trust from this Kool-Aid Man's Tummy.
44. do you remember the good early days of the internet?
i do. there was an ocean of intelligent people, even in the very earliest days of AOL. it was like a brand new universe open filled with thoughts, ideas, hopes, it was wonderful. something this beautiful had to be shared!
then it was shared (which is good) but then a funny thing happened. people couldn't keep a good thing going. they decided to do stupid things endlessly until people had to create defenses. people then had to ditch certain areas (ditching AOL and its chat rooms is a good place to start) and be more selective of trusting. whole legions of researchers had to discount websites as resources because links often were invalid after 3-5 years (y'know, just like you and i end up switching e-mail addresses about as often when ISP providers get bought out). people had to become savvy quick. not everyone was able to keep up. several people, after being repeatedly burned were turned off. others, who were more savvy, could still find information, but often found it could be just as laborious as checking the stacks in a library... thus the information age matured.
well, wiki is still young, it will soon go through the obnoxious pre-teen phase... it will have to develop defenses and limit priviledges like everything before it, and then it'll be mature. in the meanwhile i'm not going to bother waiting for it to be a resource to bother with when there's already plenty of 'mature' sources already out there.
the sad pattern of humanity. but through strife, growth. ... and kool-aid man's tummy.
wiki and the fact that it can be abused. some people overlook the fact that it can be corrected as easily as it can be abused. in fact correcting it is easier since it's just a matter of restoring the most recent backup.
But it could, perhaps be improved in the interest of disclosure. I think it would be good to, rather than just having the basic text change, show the edits in line with the basic text, sort of like Word 2004 does, if you set it that way. Also, each edit could have something showing who made that edit.
Of course, if you get a lot of edits, it could get pretty chaotic and hard to read. Hm. Maybe there could be some sort of pop-up balloons indicating the edit information, or a system of icons?
Wiki is gaining authority as a reference, and as a consequence many more users will be less aware of the Wiki concept. It's a rather Utopian way of dealing with information, and not everyone will adhere to the ideals behind it, or even understand that there are ideals behind it. It seems a bit like a Catch-22; you want a lot of people to contribute to get the broadest range and depth of knowledge, yet the more people contribute, the more likely information will get FUBAR.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.