i am in there as rondo ferguson for heroes online comic
//nnot at geek but know a couple that write and draw comics
///well not much of a geek

Great! 10,000,000 inaccurate, misinformed and typo-filled articles guarded by nerdy zealots who refuse to let their vision of those articles change. Whoopie!

Okay I use Wikipedia. But seriously, this site is like communism; great in theory, but in practice it starts a cold war.

Great headline, subby.

Woop de doo.

Sadly, I've read most of them. :(

I see what you did there, submitter.

I mean who has an article on Iam Hogg or Simpsons episode that are featured articles?

Are they running out of money?

That's 1 less than 10,000,001!

This article does not cite any references or sources.

DrowningLessons: Great! 10,000,000 inaccurate, misinformed and typo-filled articles guarded by nerdy zealots who refuse to let their vision of those articles change. Whoopie!^[1]


1.-The internets and you.

wikipedia is so inaccurate it's not even funny. Why do we need 600 articles about the various types of pokemon?

This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Anybody else like it?

Excellent headline!

duffblue: wikipedia is so inaccurate it's not even funny. Why do we need 600 articles about the various types of pokemon?

You know there are wikipedia like websites that are dedicated to such topics right? Besides its fun to start with one subject and see how far and how many different articles you can get to.

Yeah, because it isn't like wikipedia has been called at least as accurate as almost any text book or encylopedia.

How many pages are of obscure punk bands that released one 7" before breaking up?

Deletionists say that ten million is not a significant number, is a candidate for speedy deletion.

I don't think people give Wikipedia as much credit as it deserves...in retrospect, its a rather ground breaking site, and I don't think that it's filled with as many inaccuracies as it supposedly is. Don't you think it has a great amount of accurate information as well?

Heist: How many pages are of obscure punk bands that released one 7" before breaking up?

One, apparently

That's a lot of Pokemon [citation needed].

I wish there was Wiki when I was at school.

/That is all

/Was waiting

King o'Sams: I don't think people give Wikipedia as much credit as it deserves...in retrospect, its a rather ground breaking site, and I don't think that it's filled with as many inaccuracies as it supposedly is. Don't you think it has a great amount of accurate information as well?

I agree. People like to complain about accuracy, but I think it's a kneejerk cliche. I don't come across very many mistakes.

Gobobo: I wish there was Wiki when I was at school.

/That is all

There was. But the terminal you needed to access it was called a "Card Catalog"

duffblue: wikipedia is so inaccurate it's not even funny. Why do we need 600 articles about the various types of pokemon?

That's two separate issues. There could be 600 accurate, though unnecessarily repetitious Pokemon articles.

One of my favorite evaluations was The Top 8 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries

though I'd debate these being the Top 8. I've seen too many Wikipedia articles go into 20 pages on some obscure topic to just hand the Top 8 out arbitrarily like that.

Shadow Blasko: Gobobo: I wish there was Wiki when I was at school.

/That is all

There was. But the terminal you needed to access it was called a "Card Catalog"

Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you

Sue Dunham: People like to complain about accuracy, but I think it's a kneejerk cliche. I don't come across very many mistakes.

It's pretty good for stuff like Ancient History or some science. But there are two problems: first, too many pokemon and catalogs of characters from Japanese manga.

Second, it sucks for controversial topics because they get fought over by axe-grinders constantly. I'm dubious of global-warming, but Wikipedia is unhelpful in explaining the theory so I can consider it. I learn more from Jon Snow here on Fark than I learn from Wikipedia about the issue.

At work, I once had a lawyer send me a letter w/ a printed off wikipedia page supporting his ridiculous, and erronious point. I looked, out of curiosity, and the current version said the exact opposite. I thought that was hilarious.

/wikipedia contributer myself. Well, twice. Both have likely been changed by now.

Oznog: duffblue: wikipedia is so inaccurate it's not even funny. Why do we need 600 articles about the various types of pokemon?

That's two separate issues. There could be 600 accurate, though unnecessarily repetitious Pokemon articles.

One of my favorite evaluations was The Top 8 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries

though I'd debate these being the Top 8. I've seen too many Wikipedia articles go into 20 pages on some obscure topic to just hand the Top 8 out arbitrarily like that.

That is too much reading, you got a wiki article to sum it up for me?

Aar1012: Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

duffblue: wikipedia is so inaccurate it's not even funny. Why do we need 600 articles about the various types of pokemon?

These are two totally unrelated statements. Wikipedia is as accurate as it sources, just like everything else. Secondly, there are 600 pokemon articles because there can be.

this article lacks proper format and will be marked for deletion

Damn. At this rate I'll never finish them all. Won't stop me trying though.

Meanwhile, poor neglected Uncyclopedia has been hovering around just shy of 25,000 for almost a year.

+1 for the headline subby!

Wikipedia is a lot more accurate than a lot of people give it credit for. There have been studies done that show it's facts tend to be better than published encyclopedias. The trick is knowing what is good or not. Full of citations to multiple reliable sites? Probably great. On a major or controversial subject? Tends to be pretty good, as long as there isn't some fight going on about something. Some obscure band, or something less well known about? be more cautious.

Wikipedia has shown how powerful the wiki concept can be. I edited it for awhile, and the biggest problem is that they take the policy of "assume good faith" to mean "everyone new is incredibly stupid, never read any of the warnings they got despite the big flashing orange banner, and didn't mean to replace the page with shiatshiatSHISTSHISTHISTHISTshiatshiatshiat multiple times" instead of "People are probably stupid, try to explain it to them before you get out the ban stick."

Please tell me teachers do not accept Wiki citeations.


(It's like a bunch of corner trash talkers with a web site.)

chaddsfarkprefect: Please tell me teachers do not accept Wiki citeations.


(It's like a bunch of corner trash talkers with a web site.)



Of course I meant sitations

duffblue: wikipedia is so inaccurate it's not even funny. Why do we need 600 articles about the various types of pokemon?

This is deletionist-think, and why Pokemon who have been the stars of their own animated films and featured in other video games get listed in groups of 20 with small paragraphs, no images, and absolutely no semblance of relevant information other than, "They live in the grass. They were in an episode. They evolve into the next paragraph below this."

It's just funny that you picked Pokemon because it represents everything to the opposite of your claim. Wikipedia is ruined by the people with sticks up their asses.

That and the open-sourcers, who would rather see a crappy camera-phone batting-practice picture of an athlete (or none at all, of course) than a fair-use promotional image.

CygnusDarius: DrowningLessons: Great! 10,000,000 inaccurate, misinformed and typo-filled articles guarded by nerdy zealots who refuse to let their vision of those articles change. Whoopie![1]


1.-The internets and you.

Oh Goddammit. And I'd never been rickrolled before, either. You ruined my perfect record. Curse you, CygnusDarius, CURSE YOU!! *angry evildoer fist shake*

And 2000 of these are about the individual characters in J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Silmarillion".

chaddsfarkprefect: Please tell me teachers do not accept Wiki citeations.

They certainly don't, but it doesn't stop it helping with me with my university essays - but of course you can cite sources used within the Wiki. Given that I tend to be looking at things to do with Biology, don't think I've come across much misinformation, or even anything that doesn't cite its sources accurately.

/Plus if you wanted to know what that word was for the gun that had a really wide muzzle, you'll find out. It's blunderbuss.
//That was bothering me for days.

duffblue: wikipedia is so inaccurate it's not even funny. Why do we need 600 articles about the various types of pokemon?

They got rid of those. Seriously, go look.

chaddsfarkprefect: chaddsfarkprefect: Please tell me teachers do not accept Wiki citeations.


(It's like a bunch of corner trash talkers with a web site.)



Of course I meant sitations


Of course your meant citations

randomizetimer: chaddsfarkprefect: chaddsfarkprefect: Please tell me teachers do not accept Wiki citeations.


(It's like a bunch of corner trash talkers with a web site.)



Of course I meant sitations


Of course your meant citations

And you meant 'you'

This is fun.

+[1]

I find it mildly amusing how people complain about it not being as accurate as an actual encyclopedia and having crap on pokemon and such. I think stuff on pokemon and X-men and WoW and other obscure stuff that would otherwise not be in an encyclopedia is truely what wikipedia is. I'm sure people do spend the time copying stuff from an actual encyclopedia to wikipedia, but how often do those books really update themselves? Wikipedia is THEE quintessential social network.(my opinion). If you want stuff for serious research, go to a library or go find your person you have to interview. But if you want a cursory glance at a topic or event, or to just nerd out on your celebrity, video game, author, or Comic book series, wikipedi knows all.

/Somehow, I think the 10,000,000th web page was WoW, seeing as it goes to all the international sections.
//was a patch this week. New area

Thing is, Wikipedia has more accurate than inaccurate by and large. Why do you think every time there's an inaccuracy that it's such big news?

As for Pokemon taking a ton of pages... You do realize just how popular they are, right? How much money has been raked in because of them?

chaddsfarkprefect: Please tell me teachers do not accept Wiki citeations.

teachers do not accept Wiki citations.

/i have no clue whether they do or not, but you used the magic word so...

I just created a new article (pops) this very hour.
I wonder what its number is.