|
Post by Kilarin on Mar 31, 2006 8:05:22 GMT -5
What happened to the new "Musings" forum? Don't tell me the Black King has attacked and taken that square from us!
|
|
gfb
Full Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by gfb on Mar 31, 2006 12:47:35 GMT -5
I have a strong suspicion that since Xaa had disabled commenting for anyone except himself, he got quite a number of people that could not manage to interpret that as a signal that he did not want feedback or discussion, just a place to air his point of view. I must admit that even I was interested in contributing to a discussion about Wikipedia (someone did a research project about 1/2 a year ago that compared the accuracy of info in Wikipedia to the accuracy of info in a well known encyclopedia), but with comments disabled I pretty much took that as a "and this is not up for discussion" signal and therefore kept my opinions/perspectives to myself. I know better than to think that the rest of the humans have that much incite or respect for other people, though.
|
|
|
Post by Xaa on Apr 1, 2006 21:09:16 GMT -5
Sorry, I needed a place to vent, not be told how wrong I was about things.
And I still don't like wikipedia, for the reasons I stated. =P It is a quantum encyclopedia - correct information is there or not there depending on when you choose to look.
I cannot tell you the number of times I have clicked on an article, only to find the article is the word "F*CK" repeated several thousand times. Yes, it gets fixed eventually. However, this defines it as a Quantum Encyclopedia. Accurate and correct information either exists or does not exist depending on when I look.
It is also editorially biased, this bias being PC and anti-US, mostly - check out the screaming arguments over the spelling of "aluminum" sometime for a peek into the true Heart of Hate. It is also only marginally useful if you don't speak English.
And yes, I mean that literally - if you speak more than just English, try looking up articles on the other language versions of Wikipedia. If you can find them. Most times, they simply don't exist. If you do find them, you'll often be startled just how wildly divergent from the english-language version they are. Often, they're simply at odds with reality itself.
For example, despite what many would like to think, the US intervention in WW2 was not a case of American Imperialism, the Kennedy Assasination was not a plot funded by the Russian KGB in response to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and no, France did not win the US Civil War almost singlehandedly.
Relying on Wikipedia for information you will stick into your brain is like relying on the sidewalk for food you stick into your body. Just because everyone has had a chance to contribute to what you eat doesn't mean that what you're eating isn't garbage.
[addendum] And for those who respond that it is my responsibility to prove Wikipedia is not an accurate encyclopedia, I reply that this is not my responsibility. It is, rather, the responsibility of Wikipedia to prove their own accuracy the same way every other encyclopedia does - by having acknowledged experts in their fields write articles, by having editorial staff review all articles for fact-checking and accuracy, and by having citations.
All of these elements are lacking - in fact, the wikipedia community strongly rejects and abhors anyone who actually has a degree, strongly resists the notion of outside editorial review, and strongly resists the notion that articles without citation are essentially opinion pieces.
And again, google hits are NOT - I repeat, NOT - a valid method of determining what information is valid and worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. Counting the number of google hits, however, is the main criteria used by the wikipedia community to determine an article's validity. Many articles that were entirely factual and true were deleted simply because they cited textbooks that are only available in print, not online - only to reappear months later once online sources became available and the wikipedia community grudgingly admitted that something just MIGHT be true despite the fact that you couldn't google it.
The internet is not the repository for the sum total of mankind's knowledge - to the contrary, the vast majority of the data available on the internet is entirely trivia, personal speculation and political diatribes from one part or another. Google hits reflect this. Type "miserable failure" into Google and see how many hits you get for George Bush. Ha, ha, funny, yes. However, this happened because of a Googlebomb - a group of bloggers who used their blogs to manipulate google and make a political statement. This means by definition google is not an accurate representation of the state of human information, nor is it (as it purports to be) an accurate representation of the web as it exists. It is merely a representation of who has the most links with the same data pointing to the same page. That's it.
And speaking of blogs, this is another problem with Wikipedia. The amount of articles that cite blogs as sources is ridiculously high. If you opened the Encyclopedia Brittanica and discovered that four out of six of an article's citations pointed directly to web-logs, online personal diaries, you would be outraged that you'd paid good money for what is obviously pure opinion, not fact. With wikipedia, ONLY web-published sources of information are taken seriously, and weblogs are considered just as valid a data source as any other web-published source of information. This is not the foundation for an encyclopedia, it is the foundation for a game of Trivial Pursuit.
I again point people to the article on "Hymen." The article cites the work of two women, neither of which is a doctor and both of which are feminist activists in their country, stating their opinion that the hymen does not exist and is simply a myth of male-dominated patriarchal society, and states this as a simple matter of fact. This is not information that is even worthy of being included in an encyclopedia entry on a medical reality, it is a politically-motivated polemic against men, equivalent with saying that the pénis is merely a myth of female invention. It is beyond ridiculous, it is flat-out stupid. [/addendum]
|
|
gfb
Full Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by gfb on Apr 1, 2006 21:46:57 GMT -5
Sorry, I needed a place to vent, not be told how wrong I was about things. *shrug* doesn't bother me any. I have the same desire at times. Hense the lack of response from me. I'm sure other people were less in control of their reactions, though.
|
|
|
Post by Xaa on Apr 1, 2006 21:56:33 GMT -5
Sorry, I needed a place to vent, not be told how wrong I was about things. *shrug* doesn't bother me any. I have the same desire at times. Hense the lack of response from me. I'm sure other people were less in control of their reactions, though. No, actually, there was no response at all. LOL! I opened that slot because I needed a place to vent. I still vent there, too, it's just now only I can see it. Not all of the diatribes I write are necessarily entertaining (some, in fact, would argue that none of them are). Sometimes I just write stuff because I am upset or annoyed, and just need to vent.
|
|
|
Post by Kilarin on Apr 2, 2006 11:24:05 GMT -5
Up to you, of course, but I was enjoying reading it!
|
|
gfb
Full Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by gfb on Apr 3, 2006 12:23:46 GMT -5
Things I literally never thought I'd see Xaa say: I'm sure other people were less in control of their reactions, though. No, actually, there was no response at all. LOL! Given how often we hear about hate mail re: LoH & Mageworld, I really never considered the possibility that you did not recieve hate mail for something controvercial. I happen to agree with you 100% re: Wikipedia, BTW, though I do love their write up of Vlad Dracula (the real guy).
|
|
|
Post by Xaa on Apr 9, 2006 1:03:27 GMT -5
I happen to agree with you 100% re: Wikipedia, BTW, though I do love their write up of Vlad Dracula (the real guy). Well, as I said in the original post, some articles on Wikipedia are good. Some are even excellent. My problem is 1) A lot of times, even excellent articles have information in them that's utter crap, and 2) Sure, I can tell the difference between what's right and what's crap - I actually have something of an education. But people who go there to learn something about a subject they know nothing about have no idea whether what they're sticking in their head is good or garbage. For example, if you read the article on Roswell Aliens, you'd come away with the opinion that 1) Everyone in Roswell New Mexico believes in Aliens, 2) Everyone believes they landed in 1947, 3) Everyone believes that there's a huge government conspiracy to conceal the truth. Problem: I *lived* in Roswell, it's where I went to high school (today, I live in Portales). The vast majority of people living in Roswell do NOT believe in Aliens, and we think that the ones who say they DO believe are either crackpots or con-men fleecing the tourists. If it wasn't for that "Roswell" TV show and that stupid William Frakes and his stupid "Alien Autopsy" film, you'd never have heard of the town at all. Unfortunately, the Mayor and the City Council have had to smile, nod, and go along with this bullsh*t because it's become a major tourist industry for Roswell. Every year, tens of thousands of crackpots descend on Roswell to watch the parade, visit the Alien Museum, and spend money in the town. At a rough guess, we're looking at an annual income of four or five million bucks, possibly more. That's not something a town of 30,000 is going to just ignore, so everyone smiles and nods and pats the tourists on the head. "Yes, yes. Aliens are real. They landed here sixty years ago. Two of them. One was named Bubba, the other was named Fred. They visit from time to time, and keep in touch with their Earthling beer-buddies. They's all good-ol'-boys in outer space, don'cha know?" So, now you know the truth - if you're visiting Roswell to see the International UFO Museum and check out all the "alien"-themed stuff around town, everyone in the town is laughing up their sleeve at you. Yes, yes, it's all a big government conspiracy, here, buy another UFO book, Mister Ignorant Tourist-guy. And buy a hotdog, while you're at it - special price for tourists, only $5, bun extra. Yes, everyone's laughing at you. Well, except for maybe four or five local loonies like you who walk around with eyes staring at the sky mumbling "I want to believe... I WANT to believe..." The rest of us know it's crap, just a big show for the tourists. But, the Wikipedia article doesn't reflect that at all. Read the Wikipedia article, and you get the impression that everyone believes it, it's real, government conspiracy, yadda yadda. It's all crap - but if you didn't grow up in that town like I did, how would you know? Not by the Wikipedia article, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Kilarin on Apr 9, 2006 16:28:25 GMT -5
Xaa: Ha! Nothing wrong with taking money from people when they WANT to give it to you.
|
|
gfb
Full Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by gfb on Apr 10, 2006 12:28:01 GMT -5
Ha! Nothing wrong with taking money from people when they WANT to give it to you. Heh. Agreed. Seems like economic darwinism at work.
|
|
|
Post by Xaa on Apr 11, 2006 0:45:53 GMT -5
As some of you may (or may not) know, I regularly google my name to see how things are doing. And, when I did it tonight, I had a bit of a surprise coming. What surprise, you ask? Well, SOMEONE posted a bio of me to Wikipedia. I am suspecting it was someone on this board. Whoever it was, you have my thanks. I fixed a few errors and made it conform to wikipedia's style. For those of you who haven't seen it, it's here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_FarrisThis does not change my opinion of Wikipedia. Some articles are good. Some are even great. Some just plain suck. As we say in this part of the world, "You pays your money and you takes your chances."
|
|
|
Post by Kilarin on Apr 12, 2006 7:16:05 GMT -5
I thought wikipedia always told you WHO made changes, but the first entry in the history (Aug 22, 2005) doesn't appear to have any name attached to it at all. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Xaa on Apr 12, 2006 7:29:26 GMT -5
I thought wikipedia always told you WHO made changes, but the first entry in the history (Aug 22, 2005) doesn't appear to have any name attached to it at all. Interesting. Wikipedia's greatest strength: Anyone can edit it. Wikipedia's greatest weakness: Anyone can edit it. I don't know who made the first entry. I am, however, pleased that it was made.
|
|
sol77
Junior Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by sol77 on Apr 15, 2006 6:13:34 GMT -5
Hehe, that was pretty cool.
|
|
|
Post by Kilarin on Apr 20, 2006 9:12:40 GMT -5
Speaking of wikipedia. I just happened on to the "Dungeon Siege" entry en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_Siege and found: Lands of Hyperborea
For all those who love the traditional DS feeling, this mod allow players to continue playing in fictional fan created histories. Lands of Hyperborea is made by SiegeNetwork community.Made by the SiegeNetwork community? Traditional DS feeling? I think we need to fix this folks, lets figure out what SHOULD be there! (and add an entry for Mageworld!)
|
|