Wikipedia fallacies

[Romy]

Ever read an article in Wikipedia that was one big mistake or is unfounded? Ever found a bit of information that was absurdly inaccurate there? Ever wondered who was the specific bone-head that placed certain mislead information in such an article?

 

 

Post it/about it :).

[Faux]

where's your example?

[Furah]

It's called 4chan.

:grin:

[Romy]

where's your example?

 

I don't have one. Does it really matter?

[geekdude]

So basically you randomly created a post with no means of backing your views up and just stated that Wikipedia has a few poorly controlled and written articles. It would be better if you had a few examples of articles so you could prove a point.

 

Ot:

 

I know that a lot of Wikipedia articles are not entirely accurate. Most college professors and high school English teachers won't accept Wikipedia as a valid source for any research paper.

[dsavi]

So basically you randomly created a post with no means of backing your views up and just stated that Wikipedia has a few poorly controlled and written articles. It would be better if you had a few examples of articles so you could prove a point.

She never stated anything. She just said to discuss about it, we all know that it simply isn't true that Wikipedia is perfect and free from vandalism.

 

E: Gender fail.

[Romy]

So basically you randomly created a post with no means of backing your views up and just stated that Wikipedia has a few poorly controlled and written articles. It would be better if you had a few examples of articles so you could prove a point.

 

Ot:

 

I know that a lot of Wikipedia articles are not entirely accurate. Most college professors and high school English teachers won't accept Wikipedia as a valid source for any research paper.

 

There's no "point". I didn't state any arguments.

 

 

If I would, I'd say that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and thus is automaticly not 100% trusted. Since it has a countless number of articles, it's more than okay to assume that atleast some of them are plainly wrong.

 

 

@ dsavi_x4- I'm a girl ;).

[l0rd]

Bravo to all of the previous posters' reading comprehension skillz!

 

Anyways, if you're looking for hilariously bare or just plain wrong Wikipedia articles, look at the "Newest Editions" page.

[Romy]

Bravo to all of the previous posters' reading comprehension skillz!

 

Anyways, if you're looking for hilariously bare or just plain wrong Wikipedia articles, look at the "Newest Editions" page.

 

I was kind of hoping to see some posts about the older articles, even though they're less likely to exist. The most important information is already on the website so it would be more interesting to see something that was there for a long time and that probably mislead many readers.

[dsavi]

@ dsavi_x4- I'm a girl ;).

Oh, sorry. Fix'd. :razz:

[warri0r45]

I've found most of the well established scientific articles to be just fine. Generally the only errors I can find to fix are grammatical.

[Nenga]

So what exactly are we discussing in this thread?

[l0rd]

I've found most of the well established scientific articles to be just fine. Generally the only errors I can find to fix are grammatical.

Yep, grammatical errors and general anachronisms are the only things I've really ever seen to fix on the "old" articles you ask for, hence why I posted the new articles.

[Dizzle229]

Almost all mistakes will be fixed pretty quickly, depending on obscurity of the article. I found this the other day.

[Alg]

Futurama apparently once had an episode where the characters engaged the robot devil in a [censored]ing contest. And apparently Stairway to Heaven was supposed to be in Guitar Hero 5.

[Zierro]

In all my years of Wikiing I haven't found any major errors. That's not to say there aren't any; they just aren't very prevalent.

[Guest Mrmegakirby]

I've never noticed any information errors in wikipedia.

 

(And, back to what someone said before about professors not accepting wikipedia as a valid source of information. When that happens, I just look under the pages list of cited sources and use those.)

[ThurinEthir]

My friend found this a week or two ago:

[Guest Mrmegakirby]

TF2 is a sport...

[RpgGamer]

haha, I saw Jack Nicholson's page get wrecked before. Someone deleted everything on the page, and left it with only a picture of him and the phrase "is gay"

[Star.]

I haven't seen any wrong information - but then again, I wouldn't know it was wrong because I was probably looking up something new to me.

 

Hmm, I know Wikipedia isn't 100% trustable but I always thought they had ninjas that jumped up on any wrong information relatively quickly.

[indy500fan]

I know that a lot of Wikipedia articles are not entirely accurate. Most college professors and high school English teachers won't accept Wikipedia as a valid source for any research paper.

 

Because wikipedia isn't a valid source. There is not supposed to be any original research on wikipedia.

 

Wikipedia is one of my favourite parts of the web, and actually when I had to do research papers. The information on there is so simple and concise it is a simple matter to find what you are looking for, find where the people got that info from, and go to that source and use it for your source. Don't have to worry about papers anymore but it's still one of the best parts of the web just to find out random facts, then spend 2 hours following links from that and ending up somewhere completely different.

[Distracted]

TF2 is not a sport that actually includes physical exercise (unless you find moving a mouse around 'exercise')

[Zierro]

My friend found this a week or two ago:

 

Wheelchair basketball? Now that's hardcore.

[unkn0wnwarrior]

Hmm, I know Wikipedia isn't 100% trustable but I always thought they had ninjas that jumped up on any wrong information relatively quickly.

2 of my friends were bored so they went on and changed 'William the Conquerer' to 'William the Pooper'. Everywhere they saw London they added a 'g' after each 'n', as well. It was changed back within a few minutes.