A counterpoint. Wikipedia has its positives, but it also suffers from editors who treat pages like a pet project, and are protective/defensive of them, even when they are wrong. Some don’t have...
A counterpoint. Wikipedia has its positives, but it also suffers from editors who treat pages like a pet project, and are protective/defensive of them, even when they are wrong. Some don’t have knowledge in the area in question (cf. the recent Scots Wikipedia controversy). One historian y’all might know (Dr. Alex Wellerstein, of Nukemap fame) gave up editing Wikipedia for that reason. He’s mentioned that the World War II pages are pretty bad, I’m trying to find his comments on that.
On a related note regarding Wikipedia editors, I was browsing the encyclopedias tag and re-discovered this classic article that I had to give a re-read. Always makes me smile... The great...
On a related note regarding Wikipedia editors, I was browsing the encyclopedias tag and re-discovered this classic article that I had to give a re-read. Always makes me smile...
This is the story of a Wikipedia administrator gone mad with 80,000 boob pages — and an unhinged trial that would dictate the site’s NSFW future
As midnight neared on the night of November 5, 2015, an anonymous user on Wikipedia submitted a report that would rock the internet behemoth to its core. Apparently, one of its high-ranking administrators, Neelix, had gone rogue and was quietly amassing thousands upon thousands of entries dedicated to titties.
The author doesn't make any concrete proposal about what anyone should do differently with respect to Wikipedia, so I think the headline is just clickbait? Yes, Wikipedia is often accurate. It's...
The author doesn't make any concrete proposal about what anyone should do differently with respect to Wikipedia, so I think the headline is just clickbait?
Yes, Wikipedia is often accurate. It's still good research practice to follow the citations to find out where the information came from.
I think sometimes "It's wikipedia, it's not a valid source" gets taken to the extreme. It's 100% true that it's not "good enough" for formal citations. Outside of an academic setting though,...
I think sometimes "It's wikipedia, it's not a valid source" gets taken to the extreme. It's 100% true that it's not "good enough" for formal citations.
Outside of an academic setting though, wikipedia is more often than not a good enough overview without having to write and link to your own scholarly article. It's a great resource to link to for people to get an overview on a topic that you want to discuss without needing to "start from the beginning".
I’m curious as to how much of Sanger’s view is genuine belief versus bitterness his Wikipedia alternative Citizendium didn’t take off. Unrelated, but man it’s interesting to see what the...
I’m curious as to how much of Sanger’s view is genuine belief versus bitterness his Wikipedia alternative Citizendium didn’t take off.
Unrelated, but man it’s interesting to see what the right/wrong haircut and glasses can do to someone.
Even as a corporate sellout, Colbert is still funny. It's just "sanitized TV host funny" as opposed to that humor that cuts the world open and really makes you think about what you see.
Even as a corporate sellout, Colbert is still funny. It's just "sanitized TV host funny" as opposed to that humor that cuts the world open and really makes you think about what you see.
I personally wouldn't call Colbert a corporate sellout, but it is my opinion that he's not particularly suitable for that kind of show. At least not from a comedy standpoint. I really like how he...
I personally wouldn't call Colbert a corporate sellout, but it is my opinion that he's not particularly suitable for that kind of show. At least not from a comedy standpoint. I really like how he doesn't shy away from serious, hard subjects.
How can you include a statement like that, and not link to the relevant wikipedia page, just boggles my mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Yet published evidence suggests it is reasonably reliable – at least as reliable as its competitor the Encyclopedia Britannica.
How can you include a statement like that, and not link to the relevant wikipedia page, just boggles my mind.
A counterpoint. Wikipedia has its positives, but it also suffers from editors who treat pages like a pet project, and are protective/defensive of them, even when they are wrong. Some don’t have knowledge in the area in question (cf. the recent Scots Wikipedia controversy). One historian y’all might know (Dr. Alex Wellerstein, of Nukemap fame) gave up editing Wikipedia for that reason. He’s mentioned that the World War II pages are pretty bad, I’m trying to find his comments on that.
On a related note regarding Wikipedia editors, I was browsing the
encyclopediastag and re-discovered this classic article that I had to give a re-read. Always makes me smile...The great Wikipedia titty scandal
Mel Magazine – Quinn Myers – 19th January 2021
The author doesn't make any concrete proposal about what anyone should do differently with respect to Wikipedia, so I think the headline is just clickbait?
Yes, Wikipedia is often accurate. It's still good research practice to follow the citations to find out where the information came from.
I think sometimes "It's wikipedia, it's not a valid source" gets taken to the extreme. It's 100% true that it's not "good enough" for formal citations.
Outside of an academic setting though, wikipedia is more often than not a good enough overview without having to write and link to your own scholarly article. It's a great resource to link to for people to get an overview on a topic that you want to discuss without needing to "start from the beginning".
Yes, and I'm not sure who disagrees these days. I think Wikipedia is mostly accepted as a quick reference.
Maybe you have not heard the "Wikipedia is a liberal propaganda machine" conspiracy.
I’m curious as to how much of Sanger’s view is genuine belief versus bitterness his Wikipedia alternative Citizendium didn’t take off.
Unrelated, but man it’s interesting to see what the right/wrong haircut and glasses can do to someone.
Must be because of reality's liberal bias.
We can hear you sneaking about back there, Colbert.
Reality has a well documented liberal bias.
Beat me by a second. Huh, never had that happen before.
It was very much a low hanging fruit :P
It was so low hanging I opted against adding it, despite being at the forefront. :)
I miss early 00's Daily Show/Colbert Report.
Remember when Colbert was funny? John Oliver too? :/
Even as a corporate sellout, Colbert is still funny. It's just "sanitized TV host funny" as opposed to that humor that cuts the world open and really makes you think about what you see.
I personally wouldn't call Colbert a corporate sellout, but it is my opinion that he's not particularly suitable for that kind of show. At least not from a comedy standpoint. I really like how he doesn't shy away from serious, hard subjects.
How can you include a statement like that, and not link to the relevant wikipedia page, just boggles my mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia