If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Review)   Wikipedians are 80 percent male, more than 65 percent single, more than 85 percent without children, and around 70 percent of them are under the age of 30. Obvious tag is Obvious   (bostonreview.net) divider line 82
    More: Obvious, Wikipedians, Slashdot, search results, opportunism, online discussions, August 2009 the English, July 2003 Lih, Harvard law  
•       •       •

1784 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Nov 2009 at 4:29 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-11-05 11:13:15 PM
citation needed
 
2009-11-05 11:20:39 PM
You could never prove th... oh forget it.
 
2009-11-05 11:47:05 PM
Also, about 50% Aspergers.

/nttawwt
 
2009-11-06 12:06:22 AM
Funny excerpt included, that was a good article.
 
2009-11-06 01:05:59 AM
Sublimation is a process that diverts the flow of instinctual energy from its immediate sexual aim and subordinates it to cultural endeavors.

That is all.
 
2009-11-06 01:17:19 AM
Assume Good Faith.
 
2009-11-06 02:56:06 AM
80% male? So, they're mosaics?
 
2009-11-06 03:14:41 AM
In light of these findings, I went to Wikipedia in order to research these facts, to see how this information held up.


After a few minutes, I made some headway by going right to the main page of Night Court information.

Courts have all kinds of facts dealing with the population and numbers and crap like that, so it's only logical that Night Court material could provide some insight. That, and Bull was the MAN.


Once I refocused my search, I ended up finding relevant data on Batman's rogues gallery. Among these findings was the fact that the Caped Crusader engaged in battle with Abner Krill (a.k.a. Mr. Polka-Dot; a.k.a. the Polka-Dot Man), a villain capable of turning the polka dots that covered his costume into many weapons.


After a robust dinner, I dove headfirst into the search anew. Some new facts on Quiet Riot came to light, namely that drummer Frankie Banali vehemently opposed the idea of auditioning new lead singers after the death of frontman Kevin DuBrow.


At the end of THAT digression, I quickly got back on the task of tracking down some demographic info... but for some reason or another, I found myself looking at the filmography of Kelly Lynch, who played Dr. Elizabeth Clay in the 1989 Patrick Swayze actioner Road House.

In a stunning revelation, it turned out that Kelly Lynch played Luanne LeSeur AND Prunella Pegula in the 1997 Mr. Magoo movie starring Leslie Nielsen.


Now that my research is finished, would you like to know what I ultimately learned?

I learned that Columbo was played by two other actors (to wit, Bert Freed and Thomas Mitchell) BEFORE the role ended up in the capable hands of Peter Falk.

I hope that I've shed some light on the matter at hand.

Thank you.
 
2009-11-06 04:30:57 AM
bobbette: Also, about 50% Aspergers.

/nttawwt


mmm assburgers

/most tender meat
 
2009-11-06 04:40:48 AM
The neutrality of this discussion thread will soon be disputed.
 
2009-11-06 04:43:30 AM
bobbette: Also, about 50% Aspergers.

/nttawwt


Wonder how many of those got their diagnoses by way of WebMD and wishful thinking?

(This post may contain original research or unverified claims.)
 
2009-11-06 04:48:02 AM
This thread has been marked for speedy deletion.

farm4.static.flickr.com

/You bet it's hot.
 
2009-11-06 04:48:22 AM
NeuroticRocker: citation needed

Done in one.
 
2009-11-06 05:05:32 AM
Say what you will, but this demographic is who I trust the most to make good edits on Wikipedia. Judging by the emails people like my mom forward me, anyone over the age of 40 doesn't feel the need to fact check or use common sense about a single thing they see on the internet.
 
2009-11-06 05:09:45 AM
I remember when the John Edwards thing broke, all references to the affair/kid/etc were deleted. So many times that they lock his page for like a month or longer. Long after it had been verified by dozens of other news outlets, even though the original one had photos.
 
2009-11-06 05:11:17 AM
robobular: Say what you will, but this demographic is who I trust the most to make good edits on Wikipedia. Judging by the emails people like my mom forward me, anyone over the age of 40 doesn't feel the need to fact check or use common sense about a single thing they see on the internet.

I also hear they don't know how to set their VCRs and are confused by what are known as "video games."
 
2009-11-06 05:15:00 AM
Tell me about it.

I'm in my 50s with a doctorate. I've given up on Wikipedia. Any correction to facts in my specialist subject are immediately reverted by some mouth-breathing 12-year-old retard and his sock-puppets.
 
2009-11-06 05:22:21 AM
crumblecat: I'm in my 50s with a doctorate. I've given up on Wikipedia. Any correction to facts in my specialist subject are immediately reverted by some mouth-breathing 12-year-old retard and his sock-puppets.

This.
 
2009-11-06 05:39:50 AM
The future of human civilization

www.theincrediblegox.net

is mouthbreathing at you, crumblecat.
 
2009-11-06 05:41:48 AM
robobular: Say what you will, but this demographic is who I trust the most to make good edits on Wikipedia. Judging by the emails people like my mom forward me, anyone over the age of 40 doesn't feel the need to fact check or use common sense about a single thing they see on the internet.

This.

Maybe I'm just one of those pro-Wikipedia target demographics, but these people who built Wikipedia have created a system that forces it to be fairly well cited and backed up when it counts. I don't get the people who complain about how experts get ignored on Wikipedia (expert, cogent arguments get reverted by a kid). Provide an unopinionated, non-biased, sourced argument, or don't edit the article until you have that. NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH, too.

Back in the wild days of Wikipedia, you could edit anything and add all kinds of original research to an article and it'd stay up for weeks. My theory is that the administrators/creators waited until Wikipedia reached a critical mass, i.e., held enough interest and contained a sufficient number of articles, that cracking down with citation rules and NPOV demands wouldn't crush it. The "bad" articles (see above) got purged, while the good articles got stripped of their "bad" edits, at least until someone could rewrite or cite.

It was a good strategy--look at the relative trustworthiness of Wikipedia today. How many of you view Wikipedia at least once a day?
 
2009-11-06 05:46:55 AM
crumblecat:
Tell me about it.

I'm in my 50s with a doctorate. I've given up on Wikipedia. Any correction to facts in my specialist subject are immediately reverted by some mouth-breathing 12-year-old retard and his sock-puppets.


I was going to say, with WP's track record of allowing entire legions of sock puppets to work "together" to dominate its editorship, aren't the 80% males that TFA refers to really just one guy?
 
2009-11-06 05:48:04 AM
I'm 80% not surprised and 65% impressed that the F-word page isn't littered with Harley references.
 
2009-11-06 05:49:09 AM
BloodyL:
It was a good strategy--look at the relative trustworthiness of Wikipedia today. How many of you view Wikipedia at least once a day?

Double post... I use it all the time, but only for technnical/scientific subjects that few people would care to spread disinformation on. I wouldn't trust a WP article on say, Israeli-Palestinian history without corroborating sources.
 
2009-11-06 05:50:33 AM
But...but I'm all those things...

....and I read wikipedia....

did... I do bad? Did I?


/Didn't I.
 
2009-11-06 05:56:30 AM
Med student here. Most of my corrections don't get altered. Usually because I replace incorrect content with something from a journal piece.
 
2009-11-06 06:11:53 AM
I fit only one of those traits. But then I don't contribute much any more. And here's why, from TFA:

Experts are forced to engage in pointless debates with Wikipedia's bureaucratic guardians, many of whom are persuaded only by hyperlinks, not cogent arguments.
 
2009-11-06 06:13:50 AM
Omnivorous: I fit only one of those traits. But then I don't contribute much any more. And here's why, from TFA:

Experts are forced to engage in pointless debates with Wikipedia's bureaucratic guardians, many of whom are persuaded only by hyperlinks, not cogent arguments.


Sounds like SkinnyHead is busy.
 
2009-11-06 06:17:08 AM
KelvinTheClown: This thread has been marked for speedy deletion.

/You bet it's hot.


The girl on the left, while not classically beautiful, is enchantingly cute like an exotic tropical amphibian.

Send her to my chambers in purple silks with a bag of cannabis. I wish to giggle my way to orgasm.
 
2009-11-06 06:36:20 AM
Every time I decide to update a page after searching something and finding it incomplete, some tool(s) come around and start changing things usually for the worst. The page was dormant for years and all of a sudden 2 or 3 people are all editing it frantically.

There must be a bunch of people who just browse the recent changes page. I could save myself the trouble and just save the page to get it bumped.
 
2009-11-06 06:44:04 AM
robobular: Say what you will, but this demographic is who I trust the most to make good edits on Wikipedia. Judging by the emails people like my mom forward me, anyone over the age of 40 doesn't feel the need to fact check or use common sense about a single thing they see on the internet.

I think this points out a great unappreciated benefit of WP: its very unreliability keeps an intelligent reader on his guard and builds a sense of skepticism.

Traditional printed reference works have always bred gullibility. The knowledge that a publisher is staking its reputation on the accuracy of its product lulls us into a lazy state such that even academics who should know better accept what they read like the word of God, so long as it comes from the university library. Thanks to Wiki lots of people are developing the habit of looking at that reference when they see a number hanging over an iffy-looking fact rather than just assuming its from some turgid article in a journal it would take them an hour to find.
 
2009-11-06 06:57:00 AM
So, basically, Wikipedia is ran by a nerdy, loser, monastic order. Seems about right, given some of the things I've read on Wikipedia.
 
2009-11-06 07:38:06 AM
This correlates well with the fact that the most accurate Wikipedia entries
are regarding porn, anime and computer technical questions.
 
2009-11-06 07:38:15 AM
You know what other website has those kind of statistics?
 
2009-11-06 07:40:05 AM
Experts are forced to engage in pointless debates with Wikipedia's bureaucratic guardians, many of whom are persuaded only by hyperlinks, not cogent arguments.

And whatever you do, don't give a reference or citation that isn't on the 'net or can't be seen without some form of academic subscription or registration. Some idiot's blog beats a peer-reviewed scientific publication any day.
 
2009-11-06 07:41:10 AM
And 100% living in Mom's basement.
 
2009-11-06 07:42:09 AM
The girl on the left, while not classically beautiful, is enchantingly cute like an exotic tropical amphibian.

I'd hit on both of them - but then I'm desperate. Hell, I'd consider hitting on the guy in the middle...
 
2009-11-06 08:04:52 AM
bhcompy: mmm assburgers

/most tender meat


Like this? figure I would just leave this here before Gorgor or Rugby Jock spoil the show.

i294.photobucket.com

\Hot as in hot off the grill.
 
2009-11-06 08:04:53 AM
The sad thing is how many people somehow consider wikipedia to somehow be 'authoritative'. Think about how the thing is put together, the entire thing is nothing more than the epitome of group-think.

Wikipedia is the logical fallacy that persistent opinions are accurate opinions. You can correct something factually inaccurate, and it does no good become some loser with an ax to grind and too much time on his hands is convinced he's 'right'.

You might be reading something written by a NASA astronaut, or you might be reading something by a crackpot who thinks the moon landings were faked. It's like the lottery, the odds are not in your favor.
 
2009-11-06 08:10:19 AM
robobular: Say what you will, but this demographic is who I trust the most to make good edits on Wikipedia. Judging by the emails people like my mom forward me, anyone over the age of 40 doesn't feel the need to fact check or use common sense about a single thing they see on the internet.

Your assumptions are insulting and dumb. I'm always double checking and refuting crap sent to me through the e-mail, and I'm probably in the same rough demographics as your mom. Would you like me to assume that most of the young single males who edit Wikipedia are losers who can't get laid and live in their mom's basement?
 
2009-11-06 08:11:39 AM
, and 2% butterscotch ripple.
 
2009-11-06 08:17:41 AM
NERDS!

i3.photobucket.com
 
2009-11-06 08:33:22 AM
Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: I remember when the John Edwards thing broke, all references to the affair/kid/etc were deleted. So many times that they lock his page for like a month or longer. Long after it had been verified by dozens of other news outlets, even though the original one had photos.

Encyclopedias aren't meant to be leading edge news. I bet Britannica didn't have any info on John Edwards' affair either until a year afterwards.
 
2009-11-06 08:33:23 AM
What a fanatical douchebag Wikipedia editing asshat may look like:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2009-11-06 08:34:13 AM
ciocia: Your assumptions are insulting and dumb. I'm always double checking and refuting crap sent to me through the e-mail, and I'm probably in the same rough demographics as your mom. Would you like me to assume that most of the young single males who edit Wikipedia are losers who can't get laid and live in their mom's basement?

They probably are.
 
2009-11-06 08:35:42 AM
bobbette: Also, about 50% Aspergers.

/nttawwt


I LOL'd. No, not really, but I was amused.
 
2009-11-06 08:40:27 AM
topcon: So, basically, Wikipedia is ran by a nerdy, loser, monastic order. Seems about right, given some of the things I've read on Wikipedia.

You are reading way into that description, which says little more than that they tend to be young single guys (which itself is a little silly, because most educated young men are single). What you want is a more detailed statistical breakdown, which I'll draw from BODSISPOMA (Bureau of Demographic Statistics I Simply Pulled Out My Ass):

Wikipedians are 80 percent male, more than 65 percent single, more than 85 percent without children, and around 70 percent of them are under the age of 30. 50 percent play Dungeons and Dragons, 75 percent play an MMOG, and of these 70 percent belong to a "guild". 90 percent own a PS3 or XBOX360, 80 percent own a custom-built PC, 62 per cent own a Wii, almost 50 percent own accessories for Dance-Dance Revolution or Guitar Hero, and 35 percent own a car.

95 percent of Wikipedians download pornographic videos daily, 65 percent use software to automate the process, and 23 percent write software to automate the process. 92 percent masturbate daily, 55 percent do it multiple times daily, and 21 percent do it while posting content to websites. Preferred techniques are as follows:
30% -- Into a tissue
20% -- In the shower
14% -- Into the palm of the off hand
10% -- Onto own belly
8% -- Onto the floor
7% -- Into a sock
5% -- Into the toilet
3% -- Into disused coffee cup
2% -- Into purpose-made receptacle (exc. women)
1% -- Other (houseplants, housepets, fast food packaging, etc.)

Of the 65 percent of Wikipedians who are single the following apply: 45 percent have been kissed by a non-related woman, 32 percent have taken a real woman to bed, 22 percent have "gone through with it", and 4 percent have purchased a RealDoll or similar artificial woman product.

Wikipedians are roughly 33 percent more likely to be obese than their peers, but only half as likely to suffer morbidities associated with substance abuse, as few people are willing to sell to them. They are about 25 percent more likely to suffer from a personality disorder; 10 percent are thought to suffer from autism/Asperger's, and 39 percent claim to. 72 percent of institutionalized/incarcerated Wikipedians are sex offenders.

There ya are!
 
2009-11-06 08:48:50 AM
BloodyL: robobular:

Maybe I'm just one of those pro-Wikipedia target demographics, but these people who built Wikipedia have created a system that forces it to be fairly well cited and backed up when it counts. I don't get the people who complain about how experts get ignored on Wikipedia (expert, cogent arguments get reverted by a kid). Provide an unopinionated, non-biased, sourced argument, or don't edit the article until you have that. NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH, too.


Wikipedia is a useful an interesting tool, but there are some serious problems with that model. The biggest one has already been mentioned; that is the vast majority of sources are not available online. Particularly for experts who may be working from primary sources or materials that aren't readily available at your local library (much less online). Many of the people editing these articles lack the time and motivation to seek out these types of sources, and many lack the background and expertise to understand them even if they did. This creates the problem already mentioned in which something like a blog post or a random geocities site is afforded equal or higher weight than a peer reviewed journal or a primary source that is only accessible to researchers in a relevant field.

Second, the ban on original research is fuzzy and doesn't make a lot of sense. It is certainly appropriate to prevent people from posting spurious pseudo-research, arbitrary claims, or junk science. But on the other hand pretty much every piece of human knowledge started out as original research at some point. Traditionally, validity was established by relative consensus within groups of experts on the subject. However with Wikipedia these decisions are effectively made by anybody regardless of their knowledge on or experience in the subject. Again this leads to a questionable weighting of sources that tends to favor those written for the lay person, such as newspaper articles and press releases, over primary sources or secondary sources intended for experts. It introduces an additional layer or hundred in which people can misinterpret, oversimplify, or intentionally distort a topic. Ultimately there are just some things that require years of serious formal study to form a rational opinion about, and that is why experts exist.
 
2009-11-06 09:01:35 AM
So 80% male and 15% have children. Can we conclude the women on Wiki are getting laid and most have children?
 
2009-11-06 09:07:41 AM
robobular: Say what you will, but this demographic is who I trust the most to make good edits on Wikipedia. Judging by the emails people like my mom forward me, anyone over the age of 40 doesn't feel the need to fact check or use common sense about a single thing they see on the internet.

Speaking as an academic, this demographic should be the ones you trust the least.

I spend a lot of time getting my students to understand the difference between Wikipedia, random blog posts and sites written by high school students vs. published books and peer reviewed journals. Most folks this age honestly think Google knows everything and will happily go to our library, sit down, enter a Google phrase and cite whatever appears without thought.

Meanwhile, they are surrounded by an ocean of information in both hard copy and in electronic form, accessible through specialized search engines. There are highly trained reference librarians available to help them navigate this unfamiliar world and come up with stuff that is actually good.

I love Wikipedia- it's a great source. The first thing you do is scan the article, then ignore it and follow the links. Sometimes you can find actual information in the cites. (But only sometimes)
 
2009-11-06 09:20:06 AM
robobular 2009-11-06 05:05:32 AM

Say what you will, but this demographic is who I trust the most to make good edits on Wikipedia. Judging by the emails people like my mom forward me, anyone over the age of 40 doesn't feel the need to fact check or use common sense about a single thing they see on the internet


or...How to spot the typical internet geek boy who derives all his knowledge from forwarded emails from HS or college friends. And Wikipedia.
Did you remember to ask mommy for the check for next quarter?
 
Displayed 50 of 82 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report