|
From: guitarded [Jimi Vaughan]
Date: 14-May-2008 13:54
"The vast majority of Wikipedia entries aren't very good," said Beasley-Murray, but said the site aims to be academically sound. ++++++++++++ Yeah, they're gonna fix this thing up.
From: tower [of babel]
Date: 14-May-2008 17:33
I am nonplussed by university professors' disdain for Wikipedia. Compare Wikipedia to the garbage that comprises most of the rest of the internet-- Wikipedia provides an easy-to-digest crash course in practically any subject that you are curious about, and often gives direction for further reading. Wikipedia is the everyman's Library of Alexandria.
From: absintheredux
[Green Death]
Date: 14-May-2008 21:50
I have still to be shown really serious errors in Wikipedia. I pay my dues to Britannica every year and have compared article after article and saw no material difference. This is especially true if one uses all the info and references to other sources found at the end of every articles, and the discussions also made available. I think that the putting down of Wikipedia has become more of a pose and an article of faith than any real truth, and that the people who run it down would be hard pressed to document their opinion. Tenured faculties are a prissy bunch, the main problem they have with it is that it did not ask for their blessing.
From: brutus [et tu Brutus?]
Date: 15-May-2008 15:30
Many of the wiki entries you come across are actually quite robust and balanced, particularly with the additional linkages often provided taken into account. Anyone with even a modest capacity for critical thinking can usually sift through the occasional crap. Given the much more pervasive biases present in other contemporary info sources (mainstream media etc.) I would have thought there would be much more valid targets for academia with regard to questionable info being presented to the populace.
From: daredevil [CameronVale]
Date: 16-May-2008 03:10
Regarding the Beatles song 'Rain', on which John (and particularly) Ringo do fine work....called the best B-side ever; I consider it superior to Paperback writer'. To wit............ 'The inspiration for "Rain" is agreed on by Neil Aspinall, the Beatles' roadie, and John Lennon. They both described the band's arrival in Australia, marked by rain and poor weather.[6] Lennon said, "I've never seen rain as hard as that, except in Tahiti", and later explained that "Rain" was "about people moaning about the weather all the time".[7] Recording began on 14 April 1966, in the same session as "Paperback Writer", and concluded on April 16, with a series of overdubs before mixing on the same day.[3][8] At that time, The Beatles were enthused about experimenting in the studio to achieve new sounds and effects.[9] These experiments were showcased in their influential seventh album, Revolver.' - Wiki-poo
From: crapola
[Quit_Bitchin]
Date: 16-May-2008 07:45
From: abluecommunist [Red is for republicans, dammit!] Date: 15-May-2008 10:00 Hey! That scrap of sheepskin on my wall says I'm smrter than you. FOUR YEARS SMRTER. Moran. ### Moran: Moran, KS (city, FIPS 48125) Location: 37.91613 N, 95.17046 W Population (1990): 551 (258 housing units) Area: 1.1 sq km (land), 0.0 sq km (water) Zip code(s): 66755 Moran, MI Zip code(s): 49760 Moran, TX (city, FIPS 49320) Location: 32.54678 N, 99.16560 W Population (1990): 285 (150 housing units) Area: 1.1 sq km (land), 0.0 sq km (water) Zip code(s): 76464 Moran, WY Zip code(s): 83013 mo·ron Audio Help /ˈmɔrɒn, ˈmoʊr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mawr-on, mohr-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment. 2. Psychology. a person of borderline intelligence in a former classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69. That's why you constantly get bested? Kill yourself.
From: crapola
[Quit_Bitchin]
Date: 16-May-2008 07:47
From: absintheredux [Green Death] Date: 14-May-2008 21:50 I have still to be shown really serious errors in Wikipedia. ### That's because you are too stoned to notice.
From: piscivore [Michael C. Scott]
Date: 16-May-2008 13:09
I like Wiki, and have contributed several articles about naval history. For the Wiki-bashers here, I have a question: what other free encyclopedia provides the level of detail normally found only in professional journal articles on this many topics?
From: pussypounder [deeppenetrator]
Date: 16-May-2008 13:39
This is my take on wikipedia. I will not allow my students to use it as a source. It is not peer reviewed and until it becomes that it is not valid for cited research. However it offers a great introduction to topics and I have no problems at all with my students reading it and using to further research topics. Wikipedia is in some odd limbo land between being nothing better then a geocities website and something like the encyclopedia online. But I do love the fact that it is free and that is great for people who want to learn but cannot afford stuff like the encyclopedia online. It also has topics the encyclopedia will not have, such as sci fi. Being a huge sci fi junkie I love this.
From: rawnchee [Rawn Chee]
Date: 16-May-2008 14:37
There are wikipedia articles that suck. There are ones that are great. There are ones that are misleading. But the content is getting better all the time. The only problem I see is the vandals and associated creeps. In a class I took at Harvard we were assigned to write Wikipedia articles, or make significant contributions to existing ones. Students had a wide variety of experiences with other wikipedians, from having their articles deleted to receiving accolades from some of the more influential wikipedians. Personally, I've started and maintain 4 articles on wikipedia. One of them is fairly large, and very well backed up by the references it cites. It has become the first google hit for the topic. I've contributed to other articles, sometimes with simple things such as spelling and grammar corrections to insertion of references where one was asked for. In my opinion, any course in Computer/Internet literacy should include training regarding wikipedia. All that being said, what the fuck is this doing on rotten? I came here to read about father rapers and mother stabbers and three week old corpses found in playgrounds. If you're going to talk about a wiki on rotten, it should be http://www.uncyclopedia.org.
From: piscivore [Michael C. Scott]
Date: 17-May-2008 05:44
Wikipedia revisited: My last submission about the position and condition of the wreck of IJN Yamato has resulted in a massive extension of the article about the wreck. Wiki is good.
From: piscivore [Michael C. Scott]
Date: 17-May-2008 09:06
My last Wikipedia work was describing the wreck of IJN Yamato, and someone else rewrote and expanded everything. I wrote about how she must have gone down because of an explosion in her foreward magazines instead of aft, given the condition of the wreck, and lo-and-behold, new text is written, including from her surviving senior officer about a foreward magazine fire.
Updated: 17-May-2008 09:06
| 
