FrancisRune83 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I have known many reasons of why Wikipedia sucks, and why it sucked to other people. If you do not understand, please read this thread. Reason 1: The editors edit articles or articles, poorly researched (or not even researched at all) Reason 2: Anybody can edit it, then some dumb nuts come and put false info in it and the editors think that everything everybody puts in is false. Reason 3: Once an article has false info in it, an administrator locks the article from editing and no one can fix it. Reason 4: Once a false info is put in and is removed, they revert that edit back to the revision with false info. Reason 5: They are liars. When you edit, behind the editing box says do not copy things off another site. On the wrestler's articles, they got it off OWW and that is against that rule so they suck. You all must understand why it sucks. A lot of people hate it, and so do I. I try to edit it masterly researched but they revert it. You may not believe this, but it is true. First - Credit to Otbg . Second - Credit to 4be2jue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I think it's one of the best sites around, and you're apparently a pretty big whiner. I can imagine that you saw one specific entry that was false and got an F on a term paper or something because of it. You make it sound like everything on the site is false, when infact, I've yet to read anything false on the site...Well, except for when I clicked on the link to dwarfism and and someone wrote "It's freakin' hilarious!" in front of all the actually factual information. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrancisRune83 Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Apparently, vandalism on Wikipedia gets better and better everyday. First - Credit to Otbg . Second - Credit to 4be2jue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercifull Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 There are some very good points to be raised about Wikipedia but this post just reads like a whiney moan. Mercifull <3 Suzi "We don't want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn't affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape" Jagex 01/04/01 - 02/03/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Striker6 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 ^^Rofl, searching for dwarfism-pure act of boredom. Anyway the ability to edit is a perk as well, why do you think they have such a wide amount of articles? besides when an article is edited the administrators are notified. Also don't you have to pay? Who would pay to purposefully destroy a site and end up getting banned anyway. I would never use the site for anything more than just finding out the basic facts and figures of what I need to know, anything further and I have found it to be inacurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sour_tacos Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Would you like some cheese with that whine? I have written many an A+ report with information from Wikipedia. I've never seen vandalism once. If you have, you must have been searching for a vandalism prone subject, or directly connected to the vandalism itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megakiller32 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I only use http://www.uncyclopedia.org I prefer it to wikipedia, because even if someone edits it, and loads it of full of rubbish, it doesnt matter \ And i like wikipedia. If you dont like it, keep it to yourself, because complaining to use isnt going to do anything. So if Wikipedia is so bad- why do you sit there fixing it? :XD: Quit Runescape 30th May 2006.Thanks to Hawkxs for my signature :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Striker6 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Would you like some cheese with that whine? I have written many an A+ report with information from Wikipedia. I've never seen vandalism once. If you have, you must have been searching for a vandalism prone subject, or directly connected to the vandalism itself. A+, great, but what level are you writing at? because if we're talking about college/university I don't think so..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 It's not perfect, but not for any of the points you mentioned. What amazes me is the amount of research people put into writing certain articles on the most obscure of things in the first place. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionheart_0 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Exactly. If you try to cite wikipedia as a source for a high school and definitely a university or college, your paper will not do so good. Sig by IkuraiYour Guide to Posting! Behave or I will send my Moose mounted Beaver launchers at you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Damn. I was hoping you had some concrete evidence to show why it sucked; I've been looking for some for a while. You guys got any links to bad articles? [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark Lord Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 What if you go in and DELETE all the articles with false info and replace it with "Fix it now, you dumb [bleep]s!"? SWAG Mayn U wanna be like me but U can't be me cuz U ain't got ma swagga on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highlanders Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Reason 1: The editors edit articles or articles, poorly researched (or not even researched at all Noticed at the end of the wikipedia pages? All the sources of information are stated. The information is usually taken from known and good books, they do research, they research enourmously actually. Reason 2: Anybody can edit it, then some dumb nuts come and put false info in it and the editors think that everything everybody puts in is false. When an editing is made, it goes into the "recent changes" section for wikipedia writers to verify, if the change is incorrect, the change will be immediately deleted. False information never stays there for long. Reason 3: Once an article has false info in it, an administrator locks the article from editing and no one can fix it. Never heard about that. But to me seems like the article gets locked in the correct form, I see no problem with that. Reason 4: Once a false info is put in and is removed, they revert that edit back to the revision with false info. They remove the false info and put it back? Come back when you are capable of writing coherent sentences. Reason 5: They are liars. When you edit, behind the editing box says do not copy things off another site. On the wrestler's articles, they got it off OWW and that is against that rule so they suck. They give credit to the places they took the information from and/or ask permition for it. As stated above, look in the sources at the end of the article. Also notice quotes, which are perfectly legal since they give the source of the information. Also, nothing is illegal in writing an information in different words than the original context from which it was taken, its when the words are very alike or the same that it's not legal. Sorry kid, but to me looks like you just mindlessly copied those "facts" from some random wikipedia hate webpage. Wiki's not perfect, but it's doing very good, it's running all on donations which is extraordinary. 2480+ total Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisp Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 per thousand entries, it has less errors then a encyclopedia. Hegemony-Spain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimeedude Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 my librarian warned my class not to use it, she said she read it in an official librarian magazine :-s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsdragon Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Would you like some cheese with that whine? I have written many an A+ report with information from Wikipedia. I've never seen vandalism once. If you have, you must have been searching for a vandalism prone subject, or directly connected to the vandalism itself. I saw the Mario article have every mention of the Word Mario replaced with Jesus :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_drunk_dude Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 because I can edit it :twisted: its good for a quick look but if u want profound information on a subject ur dreaming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sour_tacos Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Would you like some cheese with that whine? I have written many an A+ report with information from Wikipedia. I've never seen vandalism once. If you have, you must have been searching for a vandalism prone subject, or directly connected to the vandalism itself. A+, great, but what level are you writing at? because if we're talking about college/university I don't think so.....\ 8th grade. What'd you think I was using Wiki for a college paper? :XD: But in a recent writing contest, which was PURELY FICTION the judge wrote on my paper that I have an above college writing ability. But come on, 8th grade weekend essay things we're talking here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmage099 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Exactly. If you try to cite wikipedia as a source for a high school and definitely a university or college, your paper will not do so good. Yeah, but it is a good place to start. It's a place to get a general feel of a topic and some key points about it too. Trix.--quit WoW as of 12/07Thank you 4be2jue for the wonderful sig and avatar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladmoney Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information. - Michael from The Office Visit my DeviantArt Page at http://vladmoney.deviantart.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somnambulism Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 What amazes me is the amount of research people put into writing certain articles on the most obscure of things in the first place. It helps them learn. In the past I have written things on there to help reinforce my knowledge. Anyway, wasn't there some experiment done where it was found that vandalism was reverted within an average of 5 minutes? I do not love thee, Dr. Fell,The reason why I cannot tell;But this I know, and know full well,I do not love thee, Dr. Fell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sour_tacos Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Would you like some cheese with that whine? I have written many an A+ report with information from Wikipedia. I've never seen vandalism once. If you have, you must have been searching for a vandalism prone subject, or directly connected to the vandalism itself. I saw the Mario article have every mention of the Word Mario replaced with Jesus :o :XD: That kinda funny.... Well, see, I have to look things up like "World War II" "Adolf Hitler" and "Elenor Roosevelt." I don't come across too many things like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt23 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Would you like some cheese with that whine? I have written many an A+ report with information from Wikipedia. I've never seen vandalism once. If you have, you must have been searching for a vandalism prone subject, or directly connected to the vandalism itself. I saw the Mario article have every mention of the Word Mario replaced with Jesus :o :XD: That kinda funny.... Well, see, I have to look things up like "World War II" "Adolf Hitler" and "Elenor Roosevelt." I don't come across too many things like that... I've seen vandalism quite a few times in Wikipedia. One time I was looking at the Steve Irwin article and the line "Steve Irwin died after being stung by a sting ray in the Batt Reef, near Cairns, Australia" or something like that was replaced with "Steve Irwin died after being [assaulted] by a sting ray in the Batt Reef, near Cairns, Australia" and the article on Cat Behaviour was spammed up with GIANT pictures of Longcat. Featured articles are also often subject to vandalism. However Wikipedia is great and I rarely read anything that's not sourced/researched there. Take a look at the Talk page of each article and you'll see how much care goes into each article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
____ Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Exactly. If you try to cite wikipedia as a source for a high school and definitely a university or college, your paper will not do so good.That's why you do not do something retarted like cite wikipedia; but you actually cite the reference(s) which applies to the section you used ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somnambulism Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 That's why you do not do something retarted like cite wikipedia; but you actually cite the reference(s) which applies to the section you used ;) Indeed, and it's quite good for that. In the past when I've not known much about the subject but had to write a technical report on it I've used wikipedia to get pointed in the direction of some good journals to look at, simply through the article citing them. I do not love thee, Dr. Fell,The reason why I cannot tell;But this I know, and know full well,I do not love thee, Dr. Fell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now