A Million Monkeys Hammering at a Typewriter (wikipedia rant)

...is still a million monkeys hammering away at a typewriter I was there when Wikipedia got started, and I can honestly say it was better. However, as expected, it turned to crap as old-timers failed to inculcate the values needed to run a good encyclopedia. Yes, yes, I am aware of the Nature study, just as accurate as Britannica. That was done years ago; any folllow-ups since? I think if that study was done again, Britannica might win it.

I mean, let's stop bullshitting ourselves. Wikipedia is a failure. You get extremely skimpy articles, bad sources, and petty fights that try to slant the article toward a particular perspective (especially when it tries to deal with a controversial topic). It doesn't even do TV shows right anymore, I bet you. It's based on a misunderstanding of Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society"; trying to aggregate the dispersed knowledge in society. Well, the whole point Hayek was making is that knowledge can only be utilized on a collective basis IF it is dispersed; that is, we benefit from the expertise of one another without being aware of it.

Part of experiments like Wikipedia is to figure out what works and what doesn't. Wikipedia doesn't work.

I see no problem with wikipedia.

I'm just going to leave this here.

For those who can't be bothered reading through it:

This kind of stuff does show how opinions and bias can affect articles.

Generally, I would say Wikipedia is a milestone in the history of human knowledge.
The internet is a virtually near-infinite plane and the perfect place to store that endless library that scholars have dreamed of.

I don't believe it will ever be completely bias-free, as it is written by humans and all humans are biased in some way. For example, an article about some sadist who blows up a bus is likely to be portrayed in a negative light because nobody likes a sadist who blows up a bus.

Just my two cents.

Anime-Junkie wrote:

I'm just going to leave this here.

For those who can't be bothered reading through it:

This kind of stuff does show how opinions and bias can affect articles.

Heh, it's arguments that paints anything someone doesn't like as "mental illness", that makes me think that Thomas Szasz might've been on to something when he considered "mental illness" to be bullshit.

Noonstar wrote:

Generally, I would say Wikipedia is a milestone in the history of human knowledge.
The internet is a virtually near-infinite plane and the perfect place to store that endless library that scholars have dreamed of.

I don't believe it will ever be completely bias-free, as it is written by humans and all humans are biased in some way. For example, an article about some sadist who blows up a bus is likely to be portrayed in a negative light because nobody likes a sadist who blows up a bus.

Just my two cents.

A nice attempt that worked well in the past, but their strict rules on citations makes them unable to truly aggregate human knowledge.

I'll be honest have never used wiki just use goggle instead. Most answers come from yahoo answers.

I used to be a very active contributor to Wikipedia, and I still contribute now and then. I've written several hundred articles in English and in French - mostly on history and politics in a part of the world I'm interested in, and also on a rather neglected branch of international sports. (No, I'm not going to be more specific.)

I'm careful to source my articles in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, but not everyone does that.

I've had moments of frustration and annoyance with Wikipedia, when coming across nonsense in articles, or dealing with obtuse editors. At times, I've corrected mistakes that had been there for ages. But on the whole I would say Wikipedia is definitely a success. It was a fantastic idea, and it's been more than vindicated.

It works if you know how to use it. Don't take anything inside it at face value if it's not a topic you're familiar with. Use it either to refresh your memory on things you already know, or to guide you to proper sources which will provide you with the information you need. Articles on major topics, worked on by many editors, are usually reliable. Articles on obscure topics... may be less so.

*Entering Captain Obvious Mode* Seems like the problem with wikipedia is if you contribute and write articles. Since I don't, I see no glaring problem.

To add on French, wiki is mah friend when I write stories, if only because it allows me to get a base of what I write.

So, wait, someone on a site mocks a fetish you have, and you... believe it's a sign that said site is a horrible failure?

I might be a bit more inclined to look into the matter if there were more legitimate reasoning for the complaint, but a few peoples' words on a discuss page making you angry enough to dismiss a whole site is about as reasonable as throwing out Fahrenheit 451 because you saw the Bible amongst the books being burned in it.

Malahite wrote:

So, wait, someone on a site mocks a fetish you have, and you... believe it's a sign that said site is a horrible failure?

Personally I don't believe it's a failure. I posted that page as an example of how bias can influence articles.

I think Wikipedia is a reasonably reliable resource on some topics, but not all.

Malahite wrote:

So, wait, someone on a site mocks a fetish you have, and you... believe it's a sign that said site is a horrible failure?

I might be a bit more inclined to look into the matter if there were more legitimate reasoning for the complaint, but a few peoples' words on a discuss page making you angry enough to dismiss a whole site is about as reasonable as throwing out Fahrenheit 451 because you saw the Bible amongst the books being burned in it.

I was personally making a general point about Wikipedia as a whole, not any specific article.

Like with any free knowledge base, it's got its bad parts. But I like the idea of Wikipedia overall.

You must understand that fringe paraphilias are pretty much uncharted territory in the "official psychology" sense. I've done some research, and very little is documented about many fetishes. Thus, I don't think a page on vore should be used as an accurate example.

I never meant this discussion to spiral into a session obsessing on how our particular kinks are viewed. It was more of a general complaint about what Wikipedia does to people; it's no substitute for doing your own research.

Hey guess what. most the time when i read a book. wikipedia has more of a detail on the story. how can i say the book is not lying to me. you know since they both come from a source "SOMEWHERE AND SOMEONE" just utilize what you have alright. nothing can be entirely proven

ravaging vixens wrote:

Hey guess what. most the time when i read a book. wikipedia has more of a detail on the story. how can i say the book is not lying to me. you know since they both come from a source "SOMEWHERE AND SOMEONE" just utilize what you have alright. nothing can be entirely proven

Um... You need to learn to assess reliability.

If a book is written by an expert, someone recognised in his or her field, you can be reasonably confident he's done his research, and it's accurate for the most part. By contrast, the authors of Wikipedia articles are anonymous. Some are experts; some aren't. Hence Wikipedia's policy of sourcing articles. Never take the content of a Wikipedia article at face value; if it's important, verify it against the source provided. If no valid source is provided, assume the content may be incorrect.

French snack wrote:

ravaging vixens wrote:

Hey guess what. most the time when i read a book. wikipedia has more of a detail on the story. how can i say the book is not lying to me. you know since they both come from a source "SOMEWHERE AND SOMEONE" just utilize what you have alright. nothing can be entirely proven

Um... You need to learn to assess reliability.

If a book is written by an expert, someone recognised in his or her field, you can be reasonably confident he's done his research, and it's accurate for the most part. By contrast, the authors of Wikipedia articles are anonymous. Some are experts; some aren't. Hence Wikipedia's policy of sourcing articles. Never take the content of a Wikipedia article at face value; if it's important, verify it against the source provided. If no valid source is provided, assume the content may be incorrect.

What do you think i am an idiot. i never said I'd listen to anyone. as long as its a confirmed by what u said above. An expertise opinion, Then that's the best i can lay off from until proven different or extended.

Edit: if that was a bit rash sorry.But its a little aggravating to sound like i haven't done my research before using it. I'm just saying utilize all the ones u can find and don't complain until you find a folly or error with it.

Personally, I believe that a great portion of my collective knowledge comes from reading random articles on Wikipedia. However, I have to admit that at least a few of the moderators can be ridiculous at times; I've suffered from this when trying to edit articles myself. Still, this isn't much of a fixable ordeal, and the concept of the site in the fact that such a collection of information can be viewed by anyone at any time for free is an important and rare thing in today's world.

I find that most anti-Wiki attitudes are a result of brainwashing by mainstream information sources (news channels and schools) because Wikipedia isn't governed by their own biases and agendas.

ZionAtriedes wrote:

I find that most anti-Wiki attitudes are a result of brainwashing by mainstream information sources (news channels and schools) because Wikipedia isn't governed by their own biases and agendas.

no wonder why schools never consider wikipedia a real resource!!

ZionAtriedes wrote:

I find that most anti-Wiki attitudes are a result of brainwashing by mainstream information sources (news channels and schools) because Wikipedia isn't governed by their own biases and agendas.

I'm certainly not implying that this is the case with anyone here in this thread, but I completely agree with this.

The Rev wrote:

ZionAtriedes wrote:

I find that most anti-Wiki attitudes are a result of brainwashing by mainstream information sources (news channels and schools) because Wikipedia isn't governed by their own biases and agendas.

I'm certainly not implying that this is the case with anyone here in this thread, but I completely agree with this.

Spread the Revolution, man. Free thought.

People here take Wikipedia WAY too seriously.

Let's calm down and remember that it'll never really be "complete." It's a work in progress, and moreso, a bland outlining of general information that you should cross-reference with more reliable sources for accuracy.