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.

(Time)   Wikipedia banned 250 users who were getting paid to promote certain products. They are also working on ferreting out editors who don't know what they are doing. [citation needed]   (newsfeed.time.com) divider line 32
    More: Interesting, Wikipedia, citation needed, sock puppets  
•       •       •

1145 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Oct 2013 at 8:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



32 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-22 08:58:57 AM  
ban IP addresses that trace to government , lobbying groups, and 'think tanks'.
 
2013-10-22 09:04:13 AM  

Leader O'Cola: ban IP addresses that trace to government , lobbying groups, and 'think tanks'.


Counter-argument: That would also ban anyone who works in a government lab, who might, on science-related issues, know WTF they are talking about.
 
2013-10-22 09:04:19 AM  
Its a streetlight.
 
2013-10-22 09:10:58 AM  

Felgraf: Leader O'Cola: ban IP addresses that trace to government , lobbying groups, and 'think tanks'.

Counter-argument: That would also ban anyone who works in a government lab, who might, on science-related issues, know WTF they are talking about.


They shouldn't be updating Wikipedia from the lab.
 
2013-10-22 09:23:32 AM  

DeathByGeekSquad: Felgraf: Leader O'Cola: ban IP addresses that trace to government , lobbying groups, and 'think tanks'.

Counter-argument: That would also ban anyone who works in a government lab, who might, on science-related issues, know WTF they are talking about.

They shouldn't be updating Wikipedia from the lab.


Point being they should be using their private PC's for updating on Wikipedia, not the PC's where they work.
 
2013-10-22 09:25:24 AM  
If they ban all the editors who don't know what they are doing, who will be left to run wikipedia?
 
2013-10-22 09:27:55 AM  

Latinwolf: DeathByGeekSquad: Felgraf: Leader O'Cola: ban IP addresses that trace to government , lobbying groups, and 'think tanks'.

Counter-argument: That would also ban anyone who works in a government lab, who might, on science-related issues, know WTF they are talking about.

They shouldn't be updating Wikipedia from the lab.

Point being they should be using their private PC's for updating on Wikipedia, not the PC's where they work.


...He said on fark during the workday.
 
2013-10-22 09:30:27 AM  
This could take a lot of the fun out of certain entries.
 
2013-10-22 09:34:57 AM  

fluffy2097: If they ban all the editors who don't know what they are doing, who will be left to run wikipedia?


The people who make it as accurate as printed encyclopedia?

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica (link)   http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
 
2013-10-22 09:40:53 AM  
My controversial opinion: except for new topics, Wikipedia is essentially complete and doesn't require much information about anything anymore.
 
2013-10-22 10:27:39 AM  
"Our readers know Wikipedia's not perfect, but they also know that it has their best interests at heart, and is never trying to sell them a product or propagandize them in any way," Gardner wrote. "Our goal is to provide neutral, reliable information for our readers, and anything that threatens that is a serious problem."

Man he must have been sweating profusely when he squeezed out that massive load of shiat.
 
2013-10-22 10:29:29 AM  

SpectroBoy: fluffy2097: If they ban all the editors who don't know what they are doing, who will be left to run wikipedia?

The people who make it as accurate as printed encyclopedia?

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica (link)   http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html


That's only because Wikipedia's sperging child editors plagiarize  real encyclopedias.
 
2013-10-22 10:36:30 AM  

Latinwolf: Point being they should be using their private PC's for updating on Wikipedia, not the PC's where they work.


Why not?  I look forward to your well thought out explanation.
 
2013-10-22 10:38:44 AM  

ikanreed: My controversial opinion: except for new topics, Wikipedia is essentially complete and doesn't require much information about anything anymore.


And yet I still find basic errors every other time I use it for anything serious.

/serious as being defined as not pop culture trivia
 
2013-10-22 11:03:26 AM  

enik: SpectroBoy: fluffy2097: If they ban all the editors who don't know what they are doing, who will be left to run wikipedia?

The people who make it as accurate as printed encyclopedia?

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica (link)   http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

That's only because Wikipedia's sperging child editors plagiarize  real encyclopedias.


I heard they plagiarize dictionaries too
 
2013-10-22 11:16:00 AM  
If they ban all of those people how will I learn about Hannibal crossing the Appalachians?
 
2013-10-22 11:21:07 AM  

gingerjet: ikanreed: My controversial opinion: except for new topics, Wikipedia is essentially complete and doesn't require much information about anything anymore.

And yet I still find basic errors every other time I use it for anything serious.

/serious as being defined as not pop culture trivia



I noticed today that they list Jack Johnson the musician as being a former member of the Eclectic Society at Wesleyan.

Yeah, no.
 
2013-10-22 11:23:12 AM  

gingerjet: /serious as being defined as not pop culture trivia



Well, I guess that is pop culture trivia, but still.
 
2013-10-22 11:41:42 AM  

gingerjet: And yet I still find basic errors every other time I use it for anything serious.


Wikipedia is a wonderful place to find actual primary sources for your research paper.

If you cite wikipedia as a primary source, you should be expelled.
 
2013-10-22 12:12:38 PM  
They have strict noteability rules these days. Almost everything has to have a legitimate source backing it up.
 
2013-10-22 12:13:17 PM  
I can't edit Wikipedia. They don't permit logins from mobile providers, and apparently truck stop, McDonalds and Burgerkings are banned as well. If you are on the road (which I am, permanently now, going to get an RV in a bit to write from as we travel perpetually) there is no editing permitted.

I wonder how much banning they can get away with and still be considered "something anyone can edit." Because that is a very conditional statement right now.
 
2013-10-22 12:43:19 PM  

enik: SpectroBoy: fluffy2097: If they ban all the editors who don't know what they are doing, who will be left to run wikipedia?

The people who make it as accurate as printed encyclopedia?

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica (link)   http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

That's only because Wikipedia's sperging child editors plagiarize  real encyclopedias.


In many areas Wikipedia exceeded the Encyclopedia. That is some mighty fine plagiarism there.
 
2013-10-22 12:59:22 PM  

that was my nickname in highschool: I noticed today that they list Jack Johnson the musician as being a former member of the Eclectic Society at Wesleyan.

Yeah, no.


You realize that you can just click on the edit button and fix that, right?  Or at the very least, put a "citation needed" tag on it.  It takes all of 20 seconds.

SpectroBoy: enik: SpectroBoy: fluffy2097: If they ban all the editors who don't know what they are doing, who will be left to run wikipedia?

The people who make it as accurate as printed encyclopedia?

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica (link)   http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

That's only because Wikipedia's sperging child editors plagiarize  real encyclopedias.

In many areas Wikipedia exceeded the Encyclopedia. That is some mighty fine plagiarism there.


Here's the deal.  Print encyclopedias always had inaccuracies, but unlike Wikipedia, you didn't have a helpful "citation needed" tag or "needs work" put onto the article.  So, the illusion is that print encyclopedias are infallible and 100% accurate.

They aren't.  Nothing is.

Are there problem articles with Wikipedia?  Yes.  Are their inaccuracies that need correcting?  Sure.  However, you cannot duplicate the body of work within Wikipedia and even come close to the size of a print encyclopedia.  And if you see a problem with an article,  change it!
 
2013-10-22 01:04:37 PM  

Lobo2010: They have strict noteability rules these days. Almost everything has to have a legitimate source backing it up.


The amount of information on wikipedia that breaks these rules is staggering.
 
2013-10-22 02:28:56 PM  

Latinwolf: DeathByGeekSquad: Felgraf: Leader O'Cola: ban IP addresses that trace to government , lobbying groups, and 'think tanks'.

Counter-argument: That would also ban anyone who works in a government lab, who might, on science-related issues, know WTF they are talking about.

They shouldn't be updating Wikipedia from the lab.

Point being they should be using their private PC's for updating on Wikipedia, not the PC's where they work.


There is a big flaw in your master plan. See if you can figure out what it is.


Hint: goose/gander
 
2013-10-22 02:39:16 PM  

SpectroBoy: The people who make it as accurate as printed encyclopedia?


I can think of an entire field of study in which Wikipedia is not only less than remotely accurate, but actually passes off misinformation and bad information so appalling it borders on retarded ignorance.
 
2013-10-22 05:37:42 PM  

Ishkur: I can think of an entire field of study in which Wikipedia is not only less than remotely accurate, but actually passes off misinformation and bad information so appalling it borders on retarded ignorance.


But can you name it?
 
2013-10-22 05:41:38 PM  

Russ1642: Lobo2010: They have strict noteability rules these days. Almost everything has to have a legitimate source backing it up.

The amount of information on wikipedia that breaks these rules is staggering.


Yep.  Banning users is one thing, but the real problem is the editors.  Ultimately they decide whether or not the source is legitimate, and the personal bias that comes into play with that is mind blowing.
 
2013-10-22 05:46:29 PM  

Ishkur: SpectroBoy: The people who make it as accurate as printed encyclopedia?

I can think of an entire field of study in which Wikipedia is not only less than remotely accurate, but actually passes off misinformation and bad information so appalling it borders on retarded ignorance.


I'm actually working with some industry people right now to fix something along those lines.  Short version: some merge-happy editors did not understand that there is a distinction between additive manufacturing and 3d printing (short version: 3d printing is only one specific type of additive manufacturing) and merged the two articles.

The problem I'm finding is that industry people who actually have the correct technical knowledge also have absolutely no idea how to edit Wikipedia, mostly because Wikipedia has its own weird rules concerning tone, style, process, sourcing, so on and so forth.  There is nothing writing-wise in the business or professional world that will prepare you to write articles for Wikipedia.  You need to find someone experienced at it and then get them to do the edits.  Most of them don't though; most of them just try pushing their edits that they JUST KNOW ARE CORRECT, despite coming off sounding like an advertisement or something else.  Then the edits get undone by marginal editors on the basis of tone, not content, and the cycle repeats until someone gets banned.  Lovely system.
 
2013-10-22 07:06:30 PM  

gingerjet: Latinwolf: Point being they should be using their private PC's for updating on Wikipedia, not the PC's where they work.

Why not?  I look forward to your well thought out explanation.



Internet access in many business and government are monitored for possible misuse, things like posting shiat you shouldn't be posting.  Guys from Wikipedia might not want to take a chance on getting caught in the middle of a dispute or a government leak.
 
2013-10-22 09:30:22 PM  

Flappyhead: Russ1642: Lobo2010: They have strict noteability rules these days. Almost everything has to have a legitimate source backing it up.

The amount of information on wikipedia that breaks these rules is staggering.

Yep.  Banning users is one thing, but the real problem is the editors.  Ultimately they decide whether or not the source is legitimate, and the personal bias that comes into play with that is mind blowing.


True, but how is this any different from any other large corporation trying to create an encyclopedia of this size?  Or a newspaper?  Or cable news?

Bias is everywhere.
 
2013-10-22 09:33:38 PM  

fluffy2097: But can you name it?


As a matter of fact, it's name and what people think its name is contributes to much of the confusion.
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report