MoeSzyslak Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 My school blocked wikipedia. IMO, that's just ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warren211 Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 Yeah, I'm really annoyed at the fact that so amny of my former teachers banned wikipedia and barely knew what the site was. They only heard from other teachers keywords like "anyone can edit". I lectured my teacher in class about how the editing system is not simply "post whatever the hell you want" and how thet have admins and trackers and the fact that some articles have editing restrictions. He was dumbfounded, but still firm on banning wiki because teacher gossip says wiki is the spawn of the devil :| Still, I think it should be "You can use wiki, but at your own risk" kind of thing. Give the smart searchers a break. Why sift through 3 google pages when you get everything on one wiki page? Just because some stupid students will copy "Russia is gay" on their assignments? Really, the average student is smart enough to know what is probably factual information and what is stupidity. If you're a vandal, you probably won't edit tiny details like changing a death count in a war by a few thousand or messing a few dates. You either go for serious vandalism for some lulz or nothin. [hide=]tip it would pay me $500.00 to keep my clothes ON :( :lol:But then again, you fail to realize that 101% of the people in this universe hate you. Yes, humankind's hatred against you goes beyond mathematical possibilities.That tears it. I'm starting an animal rebellion using my mind powers. Those PETA bastards will never see it coming until the porcupines are half way up their asses.[/hide]Apparently a lot of people say it. I own. http://linkagg.com/ Not my site, but a simple, budding site that links often unheard-of websites that are amazing for usefulness and fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baalboy5 Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 wiki awesome when I'm bored. I always wiki the MOST random stuff. Like discountined shows, products, companies, and such. It a great way to be informed about stuff that no one cares about :mrgreen: Don't you know the first rule of MMO's? Anyone higher level than you has no life, and anyone lower than you is a noob. People in OT eat glass when they are bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highlanders Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 Wikipedia was never reliable. There are a lot of highly opinionated articles, stating opinions as facts. "He who controls the past, controls the future". Who are those administrators behind the scenes who get to decide which opinions go, and which ones get to stay? It's alright if you want to look up something quickly to get an overall view. As long as you don't take what you read for cash. Don't think "What I read is the truth", think "What I read is someone's opinion on this". If you want to get real information, look for unique ways, don't take the path everybody else is taking because that path is the path of BS. 2480+ total Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 Wikipedia was never reliable. There are a lot of highly opinionated articles, stating opinions as facts. "He who controls the past, controls the future". Who are those administrators behind the scenes who get to decide which opinions go, and which ones get to stay? It's alright if you want to look up something quickly to get an overall view. As long as you don't take what you read for cash. Don't think "What I read is the truth", think "What I read is someone's opinion on this". If you want to get real information, look for unique ways, don't take the path everybody else is taking because that path is the path of BS. Most of the articles like that are tagged with something like "this reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article" or "the neutrality of this article is disputed." I tend to avoid those ones or just go straight to the sources they have for their claims. It's a bit of a stretch to call the whole thing unreliable based on those few pages. As I said before, most of my experience with the scientific stuff has been very positive. There's really no reason to put a lot of opinion or spin into a page about an enzyme or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrash-boy Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 anyone who says don't use wiki is a moron. that's how simple it is for me anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 ^You have to remember that a "Wiki" is free PHP/mySQL/http based encyclopedia software, not Wikipedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pureprayer Posted September 21, 2008 Author Share Posted September 21, 2008 ^You have to remember that a "Wiki" is free PHP/mySQL/http based encyclopedia software, not Wikipedia. http://www.wiki.com Pureprayer, you're awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrash-boy Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 ^You have to remember that a "Wiki" is free PHP/mySQL/http based encyclopedia software, not Wikipedia. ok, wikipedia then. im just so used to typing it as wiki because whenever i want to find something on it i google whatever it is and then just put wiki at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 ^You have to remember that a "Wiki" is free PHP/mySQL/http based encyclopedia software, not Wikipedia. http://www.wiki.com Umm, what was that supposed to mean? If you mean that that's what a Wiki is, it isn't that. That's just a Google custom search that searches some popular Wikis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginger_Warrior Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 I find it's good if you want to get a general idea of the topic. There's no way I would have used an extract from Wikipedia even though my teachers didn't mind it, though. Once you have a general idea of the topic it's really not that hard to go away and find a source for yourself afterwards, either on the Internet or *shock* in a book. What makes me laugh though is when people do quote from Wikipedia, they always take the URL for the most recent version of the article and copy paste instead of getting the URL for that exact copy of the article. If the passage is removed later on, it could get them into trouble for fabricating sources. | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tbfgraphx14 Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 Wikipedia is good for entertainment purposes only. Although the main articles can be very true, I always find small articles with completely false information. So use it if you want to get a general idea of something to post on TIF, but not for your school project. Tbfgraphx14Happy to find I'm not the only one who eats glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadburys_egg Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 If you believe anything else, youre probably a heathen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will H Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 [hide=][/hide] If you believe anything else, youre probably a heathen. :) So true. Wikipedia is only good as a place where you can find relevant links, and getting an overview about a subject which you mostly already know but need a bit more confirmation. Never base your facts entirely on it! ~ W ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
issy2 Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 People should just stop complaining that its not perfect and acknowledge the fact it's one of the most useful search tools we'll ever have. Sure it can be edited by anyone, but isnt that the point? You don't have to pay to use it, you can read articles in like 250+ languages, it's incredibly detailed and mainly accurate. You simply have to bear in mind you might be reading opinion, not fact. For what it is, it's amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 Wikipedia isn't at all accurate, in fact it's liberally biased. http://www.conservapedia.com/ The Trustworthy encyclopedia. Proud to be banned. The offense? I removed some untruths from the "Lies" section of the Hillary Clinton article. The admin that did it technically broke one of the Conservapedia "Commandments" by banning me for removing biased information. :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 Wikipedia isn't at all accurate, in fact it's liberally biased. http://www.conservapedia.com/ The Trustworthy encyclopedia. Proud to be banned. The offense? I removed some untruths from the "Lies" section of the Hillary Clinton article. The admin that did it technically broke one of the Conservapedia "Commandments" by banning me for removing biased information. :roll: Sad to turn encyclopedias into politically motivated sandboxes... Not to mention Conservapedia has a lot of ridiculous articles, factual errors, quoting personal opinion blogs as sources, countless spelling errors... I'd take it with a pinch of salt like the Encyclopedia Dramatica (which is a joke, as in a piece of satire) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 The thing is, Conservapedia isn't a joke. Or at least, I don't think so. The thing that pisses me off the most though is that someone might actually take some wrong information seriously... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginger_Warrior Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 The thing is, Conservapedia isn't a joke. Or at least, I don't think so. The thing that pisses me off the most though is that someone might actually take some wrong information seriously... Only someone with an extreme case of American patriotism would take anything on that site seriously. The article they have on Uncyclopedia is just cretinous. | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 Oh man, and they call Uncyclopedia offensive... I'm going to stop browsing before I get too pissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoi_Tu Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 Oh man, and they call Uncyclopedia offensive... I'm going to stop browsing before I get too pissed. I thought some of the stuff was kind of funny. Like the picture of a liberal's brain: http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal Beer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_hysteria :lol: Yep, really professional alternative to Wikipedia... And I smell B.S. on their claim they have over 50 million articles... P.S: For a good laugh compare these two articles: http://www.conservapedia.com/John_Mccain http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama Very objective and unbiased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 It said page views, not articles. They're not that bad. And I like that picture of that dragon Al Gore on the Liberal Hysteria article. Edit: The number of sources to page length ratio in this page is hilarious, and yes, some are opinion blogs: http://www.conservapedia.com/2008_Presidential_election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginger_Warrior Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_hysteria :lol: Yep, really professional alternative to Wikipedia... And I smell B.S. on their claim they have over 50 million articles... P.S: For a good laugh compare these two articles: http://www.conservapedia.com/John_Mccain http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama Very objective and unbiased. Someone should sue them for slander. I mean, it's patently obvious to anyone who even has a basic understanding of religion that Obama is not a Muslim. | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoi_Tu Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_hysteria :lol: Yep, really professional alternative to Wikipedia... And I smell B.S. on their claim they have over 50 million articles... P.S: For a good laugh compare these two articles: http://www.conservapedia.com/John_Mccain http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama Very objective and unbiased. Someone should sue them for slander. I mean, it's patently obvious to anyone who even has a basic understanding of religion that Obama is not a Muslim. They've covered their [wagon] with what appears to be legal grey area: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:General_disclaimer Beer 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