Wikipedia takes itself far too seriously.

AntiNorm: Wikipedia takes itself far too seriously.

Yes it does. I think this is a joke? If it is it'll be scrapped soon.

MNguy: I think this is a joke? If it is it'll be scrapped soon.

Discussion page mentioned it almost three years ago.

Its like RAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIN

hahahahaha

I question the neutrality of this article.

I can't imagine how insanely annoying and excessively serious dedicated Wikipedia editors must be in real life.

I've never met one... I think.

Yesterday, I made an interestingly amusing discovery:

An internet gaiden game based on the horrible Charles Barkley Genesis basketball game has an article on Wikipedia. And it's five times larger than the article for said horrible Charles Barkley Genesis basketball game.

Tells you all you need to know about Wikipedia right there.

The edits on this page will be hilarious, in 3. 2. 1.

Wikipedia takes itself far too seriously.

I disagree. I think its undeniably harsh self awareness is a splendid paradigm for incredible growth and promise.

/what a weird fortune cookie. now what's this thread about?

IlGreven: Yesterday, I made an interestingly amusing discovery:

An internet gaiden game based on the horrible Charles Barkley Genesis basketball game has an article on Wikipedia. And it's five times larger than the article for said horrible Charles Barkley Genesis basketball game.

Tells you all you need to know about Wikipedia right there.

STFU and Jam.

bobbette: I can't imagine how insanely annoying and excessively serious dedicated Wikipedia editors must be in real life.

I've never met one... I think.

This article may help you get to know the average Wikipedia editor a bit better.

Might as well get it going....

AntiNorm: Wikipedia takes itself far too seriously.

it insists upon itself

Lard: I question the neutrality of this article.

It's a beige alert!

Ninjazx: AntiNorm: Wikipedia takes itself far too seriously.

it insists upon itself

What does that even mean?

Ninjazx: it insists upon itself

What does that even mean?

Excellent use of tag. Haha

I like Wikipedia. Sure, there are plenty of pages haggled together and poorly written, but a far larger portion of them are put together as intended. That is to say, a synthesis and compilation of references to credible published sources. Even the poorly formed articles at least serve as an introduction to a topic. Do they all have to be read with a grain of salt? Of course, but so do articles in refereed journals.

Sorry, but the rules are on Wikipedia for a reason. If they didn't enforce all of their rules, then the credibility of that site would go down dramatically. Wikipedia is only where it is now because of its rules. I agree with the need for citing sources in this particular article.Single White Male: bobbette: I can't imagine how insanely annoying and excessively serious dedicated Wikipedia editors must be in real life.

I've never met one... I think.

This article may help you get to know the average Wikipedia editor a bit better.

I'd say borderline personality disorder, but Wikipedia editors only show splitting (new window).

I'd never cite wiki, but it is a good place to go to get links to reputable pages about whatever it is you are interested in.

/And you can read up on how elephants are making a comeback!

Fr._Peter_Fitznuggly: Ninjazx: it insists upon itself
What does that even mean?

It means don't question Bruce Dickinson

Pyr0: Lard: I question the neutrality of this article.

It's a beige alert!

All I know is my gut says maybe.

Samsaran: bobbette: I can't imagine how insanely annoying and excessively serious dedicated Wikipedia editors must be in real life.

I've never met one... I think.

You just never know. I hear they all live in a cave somewhere.

I'd like to revert your post due to vandalism

NOBODY FIX THIS

If Wikipedia cites its own reference article as a reference, the universe will collapse upon itself in a self-denial of cause and effect, and time will cease to exist. And Alanis will become the genius of our time.

Lard: Pyr0: Lard: I question the neutrality of this article.

It's a beige alert!

All I know is my gut says maybe.

If I die, tell my wife: hello

Even when they do have citations to original sources, it isn't like they typically interpret those sources correctly. One of my colleagues pointed out that someone misinterpreted something we published on Wikipedia. I changed it, and the person who wrote that part in the first place argued about it in the discussion section saying that, "this is what the authors meant." It reminded me of the FCC saying that the forefathers meant that boobies were bad.

I've worked for two corporations that had wiki entries that were actually accurate and fair... at first.

One had their number one competitor drop their name into it all over the place to help them boost their relevance the other was completely deleted. When we restored it to what it had been some editor took their wiki badge too seriously because a corporation dared touch their own entry.

The other place had their entry completely deleted by a polish editor. No actual reason given, just gone. Since the place actually participates in setting the standards for a lot of wireless communications, it busted a lot of related links.

It upset us so much we completely ignored it.

Samsaran: No academic would cite Wiki

No academic should cite ANY website unless it is for anecdotal purposes.

AntiNorm: Wikipedia takes itself far too seriously.[citation needed]

tonesskin: Samsaran: No academic would cite Wiki

No academic should cite ANY website unless it is for anecdotal purposes.

Sorry, I'll get off your lawn.

In principle, I support Wikipedia.

It's just the English Wikipedia I have issues with. The German and Russian Wikipedias prove that a good encyclopedia can be written anonymously (without real names).

The English WP suffers from an abundance of articles on pop culture/railway stations/Nowhere Town, Nowhere State, USA/etc., presumably the result of people wanting to write but not having anything useful to write on.

If the English WP is ever to be respected, then a very large cull is in order, and people should get rid of the idea that "people exist, so they should be able to write" and put in its place "WP exists, so if I can't write anything for an encyclopedia, then I should go away".

/Also there are those wikis which demand proof of real names and qualifications, such as Citizendium and Scholarpedia---the latter sets qualifications at the level of PhD/Nobel Prize.

This sounds more like an infinite loop if you ask me.

That's not irony. That's self-referential paradox.

DeRosso: Lard: Pyr0: Lard: I question the neutrality of this article.

It's a beige alert!

All I know is my gut says maybe.

If I die, tell my wife: hello

I came in here to say many of these things.

I dare any of you to expand significantly upon any wikipedia article that isn't some computer game that you've spent 500 hours playing. for that, and that alone, it's brilliant.

tonesskin: Samsaran: No academic would cite Wiki

No academic should cite ANY website unless it is for anecdotal purposes.

I can think of a few sites, with domains ending in .edu or .ac.uk, that I would have no problem citing. Protip: Some articles are actually published this way, by their author, in addition to copies on jstor/google scholar or similar pages.

AntiNorm: Wikipedia takes itself far too seriously.

They are, however, the only ones who do.

IlGreven: Yesterday, I made an interestingly amusing discovery:

An internet gaiden game based on the horrible Charles Barkley Genesis basketball game has an article on Wikipedia. And it's five times larger than the article for said horrible Charles Barkley Genesis basketball game.

Tells you all you need to know about Wikipedia right there.

I thought Shut Up and Jam was fun. In fact, I still have a copy, and a working genesis.

/going to go shut up and jam now

Wikipedia is worthless compared to FARK. You all contribute far more to society with your self-righteous, sarcastic comments and clearly superior intelligence to the average person. Indeed, if we could just kill everyone in the world except for FARK posters things would be so much better.

tonesskin: No academic should cite ANY website unless it is for anecdotal purposes.

Or their doing work that involves websites.

Canadian rock band Nickleback has hinted in e-mails to members of their fan club that their upcoming concept album will feature a song based on the George Foreman Grill. (pops)

When sabotaging Wiki articles, the trick is to make ridiculous claims but word them so they are somewhat believable to the average person. Half-assed references (e.g. hinted in e-mails to members of their fan club) are an added bonus.

tonesskin: Samsaran: No academic would cite Wiki

No academic should cite ANY website unless it is for anecdotal purposes.

I'm curious how academics are supposed to cite things like manuals that are *only* available on the web.

OG.

tonesskin: No academic should cite ANY website unless it is for anecdotal purposes.

The distribution medium does not alter the accuracy of the data.

Joe USer: tonesskin: No academic should cite ANY website unless it is for anecdotal purposes.

The distribution medium does not alter the accuracy of the data.

No, the medium might not, but the author of the material sure does.

themindiswatching: You're assuming they have credibility to begin with.

Two door?

or.....


Four door?

Samsaran: Not so. In these modern times of ours there are professional journals and other academic sources which are available online. This is why the style manuals now include these references.

Online journals are not what I mean by website. The online journals are typically peer-reviewed.

galibert: I'm curious how academics are supposed to cite things like manuals that are *only* available on the web.

Again, I should clarify. I meant non-academic websites (e.g., Wikipedia, CNN, Science Blog, Eurekalert, etc.). Those that purport to have scientific material.

No academic should ever need to set foot into a library. I didn't mean not using the web, I meant that singling Wikipedia out as a source that sucks doesn't do justice to all the other sucky ass sites out there.

Joe USer: tonesskin: No academic should cite ANY website unless it is for anecdotal purposes.

The distribution medium does not alter the accuracy of the data.

No, but a peer-reviewed process makes it a lot more likely that inaccurate data will be corrected (though there is some fraudulent data that makes it past the reviewers).

LiquidTester: Wikipedia is worthless compared to FARK. You all contribute far more to society with your self-righteous, sarcastic comments and clearly superior intelligence to the average person. Indeed, if we could just kill everyone in the world except for FARK posters things would be so much better.

At what point did Fark ever claim to be a source of accurate information? Damn, you are retarded. What's next? Attacking Zombo.com for not really letting you do anything you want?

theorellior: DeRosso: Lard: Pyr0: Lard: I question the neutrality of this article.

It's a beige alert!

All I know is my gut says maybe.

If I die, tell my wife: hello

I came in here to say many of these things.

I have no strong feelings either way.