I just lost all respect for Wikipedia

[Bjorn Against]

Here is what they have to say about Ann Coulter:

Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is an American syndicated columnist, bestselling author, attorney,civil rights advocate, and conservative pundit who frequently appears on national television and radio programs. She is frequently invited to speak on college campuses and at other events.

Yes according to Wikipedia the woman who says we should invade Muslim Countries kill their leaders and forcibly convert them to Christianity is A CIVIL RIGHTS ADVOCATE!!!

Imagine what George Orwell would be writing if he were alive today.

On Edit: Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. You realize, of course, that anyone can submit and edit entries on wiki?

[w4rma]

2. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that **you** can change it. (nt)

[Bjorn Against]

5. How do I do that?

Are you suggesting that just anyone can go on and change an entry?

[uppityperson]

9. you have to sign up (I think) but yes. Anyone can and does.

This is why Wikipedia is not taken seriously as a reference many times.

[KingFlorez]

3. Anyone can edit Wikipedia

And put what every wrong information they like, so don't worry about this

[Tiggeroshii]

4. change it.

Wikipedia is an every person's encyclopedia and it's purpose is for people to write something and those who know better to edit it. She isn't a civil rights' activist, so just get rid of it.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

6. Before you "lost respect" for it..

..make sure you understand what the hell it is. Clearly you don't.

[LoZoccolo]

18. Yeah!

Just like a person should remember how to be polite before they post on a message board.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

26. Huh?

When was that rule introduced?

[LoZoccolo]

27. Is that what it comes down to, in your opinion?

That you can get away with it without being tombstoned?

[SeveneightyWhoa]

33. Yeah. Precisely.

I am not a "nice" person, so don't ask me for respectful behaviour.

[LoZoccolo]

34. OK.

Don't ask people to treat you more than 12 years old then.

[baldguy]

7. Its been corrected.

[Bjorn Against]

8. I learned something new I guess

Thanks everyone I never realized it was possible to change the entries like that. I figured it out but it looks like someone else beat me to the change because it was gone when I got there.

[Fridays Child]

10. It wasn't documented, so I edited it out.

It's well known that she'sa conservative pundit, attorney and best-selling (go figure) author. If there is any evidence to support calling her a civil rights advocate, then the original author should show it.

[Cerridwen]

16. Re: best selling

How about (best selling because her supporters buy in bulk then sell them at drastically reduced rates because even her "supporters" won't pay good money for her books)

Just a suggestion.



:evilgrin:

[Fridays Child]

17. I thought about that, too.

[Vidar]

19. Thank you.

[Don1]

20. Good work!!! n/t

[tenshi816]

23. It's back in now, I just checked

(at 10:25 a.m. Sunday morning, UK time).

Ann Coulter, civil rights advocate. She must have put that bit in herself because I can't see how anyone else could consider that hag as someone who supports civil rights.

Edited to say that I just finished changing the Coulter Wiki page. I thought of adding "heartless, soulless bag of bones" but decided to be prudent and just take out "civil rights advocate".

Edited yet again to add: Go down the Coulter page and look at the quotes under the heading "Writing and Speaking Style." How long before someone catches the change to the quote and removes it?

[Fridays Child]

25. I fixed it, again.

Ann and her smarmy ilk probably base that characterization on her work against equal opportunity. Thugs like her always disguise their efforts in that arena as civil rights advocacy.

[tenshi816]

35. I've fixed it as well, but

"civil rights advocate" keeps popping back in. Coulter must employ someone whose sole job is to monitor her Wikipedia page, which is pretty sad (oh, what am I saying, she brought it all on herself and I find it hilarious).

I can't imagine what it's like to go through life so hated by so many people. Ann Coulter's a sorry excuse for a human being.

[kiahzero]

11. Welcome to Wikipedia

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

[Union Thug]

12. So edit it. That's what wikis are for! :-) n/t

[Spaceman Spiff]

13. I hate having to type in the "subject" line

Actually, some articles on Wiki have been locked up and can't be edited. Like George Bush's and Bill Clinton's bios.

[lynne]

14. You mean you HAD respect for Wikipedia???

It's a worthless joke. Completely useless as a resource site since the info can be changed.

[Comicstripper]

15. Uh

Are you familiar with the recent study which concluded that Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britanica? The study was in regards to scientific articles specifically, but the reliability of Wikipedia is solid.

[lynne]

21. I'm familiar with the fact that none of my children's teachers -

- will allow them to use Wikipedia as a source on research papers at the AP senior high level. I'm familiar with finding less than detailed and/or accurate historical information on the few times I personally looked at it for use as a resource tool. I don't need a recent study - I can see and think for myself and Wikipedia is a worthless waste of bandwidth if its intent is to be a serious source for research information.

[rockymountaindem]

22. It's a good place to go for quick info on non-controversial subjects

It's good, but not of academic quality. I do use it frequently to find information on things like TV shows, music, and basic facts that aren't in dispute.

[underpants]

24. Yeah I use it for general info and a starting point on some topics

I have found it to be accurate to a high degree. Again, if I just need to know the basic "Whowhatwhenwhere" answer it is a great start and it tends to show up on the first page of google most of the time so I read it and two or more other links and that gives me a good idea where to go from there.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. But that's all one should use an encyclopedia for anyway

I can't believe they let kids do "research papers" out of any encyclopedia. No wonder they look at me like I've got three heads when they discover the research requirements in the university.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. Don't complain: Improve it

That is the whole point. Start taking some responsibility for our information ecology instead of relying on some nebulous authority to tel ya so. Jeez, people wonder why democracy doesn't work. Could it be because people like being led around by the nose by mystical authority figures? Don't like Wikipedia? Make it fucking better, then. That's the burden of being free.

[Book Lover]

40. Are you familiar with the more recent article that proved the Nature

article was cooked?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/

Independent experts were sent 50 unattributed articles from both Wikipedia and Britannica, and the journal claimed that Britannica turned up 123 "errors" to Wikipedia's 162.

But Nature sent only misleading fragments of some Britannica articles to the reviewers, sent extracts of the children's version and Britannica's "book of the year" to others, and in one case, simply stitched together bits from different articles and inserted its own material, passing it off as a single Britannica entry.

snip

In one case, for example. Nature's peer reviewer was sent only the 350 word introduction to a 6,000 word Britannica article on lipids - which was criticized for containing omissions.

A pattern also emerges which raises questions about the choice of the domain experts picked by Nature's journalists.

Several got their facts wrong, and in many other cases, simply offered differences of opinion.

"Dozens of the so-called inaccuracies they attributed to us were nothing of the kind; they were the result of reviewers expressing opinions that differed from ours about what should be included in an encyclopedia article. In these cases Britannica's coverage was actually sound."

I myself have vandalized wiki articles and they have been left unaltered, yet viewed and read, for weeks on end to prove this exact point. What use is an encyclopedia where the truth is up for popular vote?

[kiahzero]

42. So, then you're part of the problem you're criticizing?

Isn't that rather like complaining about a how messy a house is by leaving your dishes and clothes lying all about the place?

[onja]

29. Yes, but good for general info.

Of course, no one would use Wikipedia to write a college paper. But still, it's useful for general knowledge. Learn the basics of historical events, people, star trek episode 98 minute 5, peruvian flying pigs, anything

[Orangepeel]

30. it's a good source for sources

Wikipedia should never be cited as a source. Open editing to review content is just too arbitrary because at any given hour some idiot or prankster can screw it all up.

But, it is a very good place to get a list of real references on a subject.

[onja]

28. Then fix it.

This is the wonder of Wikipedia. Most of the stuff is right. Just ignore politics if you want to avoid fallacies. If you don't want to avoid them, fix them.

BTW-99.9% of Wikipedia is amazing and correct.

[Skittles]

36. read previous posts

cannot be fixed because asshole righwing trolls enjoy revising the truth

[onja]

46. Do more Stuff

If they are using an obvious bias, go to the talk page. Either get the mods in or get a vote on whether it is a NPOV. If they keep changing it you can petition to have the article locked.

[deaniac21]

37. 74.3 % of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[bobbieinok]

38. in 60s in univ related discussion group, my ex said something like this

One of the older members challenged him: 'Did you make up this statistic?' He answered 'Yes, but it sure sounded right, didn't it?'

He claimed that after several years of debate in HS he had learned both how to make up info so it would sound good AND how to detect possible made-up info.

[onja]

45. Again, Figure of Speech

I wasn't really saying that 999/1000 are correct. Just that the vast majority are correct. And that's from my personal experience.

[onja]

44. Okay...

A very large number is correct. I was just using a figure of speech.

[kiahzero]

41. That's pretty much it

Using Wikipedia as a resource for extremely contentious issues is probably not a good idea, as those are the most likely candidates for vandalism. For other things, it is probably one of the best resources on the Internet. For instance, I've yet to find a better place to look for information on CS algorithms than Wikipedia. I've also found it to be a good starting place for familiarizing myself with Supreme Court cases.

[semillama]

39. Sort of off-topic, but does anyone else get the Google ad

for the liberal-bashing kids book at the bottom of the page?


And does anyone find the google ads to be an unitentional source of humor?

[LittleClarkie]

43. Eh, it's user edited.

Hence, a freeper wrote that entry. But there is a process by which you can contest the validity of an entry. You might try that.

[Demi_Babe]

47. I'd like to see evidence of her good work

:eyes:

Ann was a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.