Why wikipedia has not had any recent scandals

[Truthmatters]

Threat Level - Wired Blogs

The edits can be tracked back to who edited it.



Caltech graduate student Virgil Griffith just launched an unofficial Wikipedia search tool that threatens to lay bare the ego-editing and anonymous flacking on the site. Enter the name of a corporation, organization or government entity and you get a list of IP addresses assigned to it. Then with one or two clicks, you can see all the anonymous edits made from those addresses anywhere in Wikipedia's pages.

 

[Red Dawn]

Why wikipedia has not had any recent scandals



The edits can be tracked back to who edited it.

Bummer.

I guess Bush supporters are going to be detered from going to their hero's wiki page to write about how the bush tax cuts worked, or how the WMD were moved by France to Syria.

 

[editec]

Happy to hear it.

Wiki could become a very useful tool if its contributors are held accountable for their entries.

Otherwise it becomes a tool of propagandists.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Threat Level - Wired Blogs

The edits can be tracked back to who edited it.



Caltech graduate student Virgil Griffith just launched an unofficial Wikipedia search tool that threatens to lay bare the ego-editing and anonymous flacking on the site. Enter the name of a corporation, organization or government entity and you get a list of IP addresses assigned to it. Then with one or two clicks, you can see all the anonymous edits made from those addresses anywhere in Wikipedia's pages.

lots of proxies being used.

but Wiki keeps a better eye on things,. they need volunteers.

I tried but got quickly distracted

 

[ABikerSailor]

Ya know....I LIKE Wikipedia.

It's kinda like the Cliff's Notes of the world. Ya wanna know something? Type into wiki and get a decent overview. If you're interested in going further, then they've got links to whatever you're interested in learning further about.

And, it's good to see that SOME people still have integrity. I applaud wiki for their work!

 

[Jon]

This remembers me of Thursday's episode of 30 Rock. Jenna was going to be playing a "Janis Joplin-like character" and her friends told her to go to Wikipedia to research Joplin's life. So they edited all this crazy shit into the page and Jenna did it.

Wikipedia will never be too reliable a source for a serious discussion. Even if you know who edited the page, it doesn't mean what they edited was or was not correct.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This remembers me of Thursday's episode of 30 Rock. Jenna was going to be playing a "Janis Joplin-like character" and her friends told her to go to Wikipedia to research Joplin's life. So they edited all this crazy shit into the page and Jenna did it.

Wikipedia will never be too reliable a source for a serious discussion. Even if you know who edited the page, it doesn't mean what they edited was or was not correct.

sure. but what place is 100% reliable all the time. using that standard we would all remain in ignorance or worse...with our own versions of the facts..


oops! that already exists to some extent.

I have rarely ever been misled by Wikipedia and I used it lots...lots! Though I am usually looking up stuff I have some familiarity with,

I find most people who've I've met who have the balls to dis Wikipedia (present company excluded as we have not met) to my face get shot right down rather quickly. They are mostly ignorant and walking around with a poor substitute for knowledge and truth in the back pockets...their uninformed world views.

When I wiki anything new, I follow through to other sources. Would do that even at the library way back when/ I almost NEVER take once source as the word of...well...um...you know...a god.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Wait a minute......you're basing the validity of the site on a humorous show?

I bet you get your news from Saturday Night Live too, don'tcha?

 

[Jon]

No, I'm basing the validity of the site on the history of the site. Learn to read.

 

[del]

This remembers me of Thursday's episode of 30 Rock. Jenna was going to be playing a "Janis Joplin-like character" and her friends told her to go to Wikipedia to research Joplin's life. So they edited all this crazy shit into the page and Jenna did it.

Wikipedia will never be too reliable a source for a serious discussion. Even if you know who edited the page, it doesn't mean what they edited was or was not correct.

depends on the subject matter of the page, imo. for political stuff, it's obviously chancy, but if you want to look up the history of lichtenstein, it's a good place for general info and usually gives some good starting points for further research. it's kind of the swiss army knife of reference material.

 

[Jon]

Good point. It's good for getting facts about dates and places, but far too many contributors add their fucked up opinions to trust any of the meat of the information presented.

 

[ABikerSailor]

That's why I said that Wiki is a good Cliff's Notes. Gets you information about the subject, as well as directs you for further research.

And......I always cross reference things.........

 

[editec]

That's why I said that Wiki is a good Cliff's Notes. Gets you information about the subject, as well as directs you for further research.

And......I always cross reference things.........

Very sensible approach no matter which source you first consult, really.

I use WIKI all the time to start me down some research path.