Ken Lay Dead; Wikipedia Confused

Originally Posted by acid

Yes, Wikipedia is fallible. By it's very nature it's greatest strength is it's greatest weakness. However this just strengthens the idea that the system works.

Given that the system is powered by the gerbil wheel known as the internet user - thats really nothing to bolster one's argument.

Wiki does not work because it's open to everyone. Of those supposed 13,000, how many of them are educated enough to give an educated writing on any particular subject? I'm sure that a couple of them could, say, write an interesting, intelligent bit on Tipler's Rotating Cylinder - so whats that say about the other 12,985 people on there? This isn't even to say that those people have done anything - but that they're empowered to.

These 13,000 people are not checked for degrees, they're not asked for credentials. The anonymity of the internet empowers them to do what they will without a consequence beyond banning and moving on - not unlike how GFF or any other internet forum runs.

Not to mention - do not underestimate mob mentality. Do you think our current state of journalism is because people want intelligent, factual reports - or quick, digestible soundbites over your morning coffee and afternoon shit?

You cannot accept Wiki as a source for anything if anyone can edit it as they see fit. If you want to - thats your problem; do not make it mine, internet, or you'll get a hard lesson of my foot up your ass.

Originally Posted by gukarma

I disagree. For paper writting of some subjects (the uncool ones, I guess) wikipedia is AMAZING. Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylsulfoxide. The article is about a solvent commonly used in labs. There's absolutely nothing about methyl sulfoxide in the Encyclopedia Britanica.

In a better world, I'd be given the power to string you up by your neck for being a traitor to your better man.

"Boy, this source doesn't have what I want - but THIS DOES! Obviously my opinion is correct!" is about as fucking stupid a point as a person can make. Isn't this why we have MANY books instead of living with a single source? Isn't this why we have things like libraries instead of the soapbox mentality of the internet?

Where do you live, boy? I want to call your hometown and complain about your obvious lack of education.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

I like how you intersperse talking about how stupid something on the internet is with physical threats to people over the internet. Can I get a lol in here.

You'd have a point if I was known for hanging people. Since I am not, I'm forced to point out that this part of your statement holds no water, what-so-ever.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by acid

Like I said, as a 100% infallible source that could be quoted on a term paper or in a report, Wiki wouldn't work. As a quick way to look up a fact, or learn something new about something you didn't know alot about, it does.

Thats a great way to make a defense - until I ask you to quantify that everyone who makes a post or edits on Wiki actually does research on the topic. Obviously - the answer is at least "not all", as there are people who write things that are later removed.

So - you can't quantify that anyone, let alone a number of people, are qualified to make a post about anything on Wiki and be considered legit. The numbers are stacked against you - the proof of evidence is on you, not I.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

So now in order for something to be a threat you need to have done it before?

Certainly stands to reason. By this point, the snide nature of "e-threats" is responded with the equally snide nature of a dismissal. Lather, rinse, repeat - though it stands to reason that people who need to point out the obvious lame nature of internet threats could only be as lame as the threat it's self.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

And, as acid pointed out, you kinda forgot the booting of ass in your post.

I said that to the internet - which is not a person, so much as a massive group of people that lacks a singlar ass. To take such a statement seriously denotes you don't understand that which you're apparently using at the moment.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I take it everyone here has seen this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmHm0rGns4I

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by acid

That while yes, there will be errors, overall the self policing style does work for Wikipedia.

I take it you lead the charge in driving the Frankenstein Monster up into the windmill? Mob mentality - might makes right - works for the facts as well?

Oh brave new world, with such putzes in it.

Originally Posted by acid

You backpedal any faster, and you're going to fall over.

You misunderstand me and you get corrected, simple as that.

Originally Posted by RR

So this means, like, I could send e-mails to people telling them I'm going to rape their children, shoot their wife, and burn their parents' house down and they shouldn't take it as some sort of threat? It must be nice living in your own little world.

I suppose it depends on the situation, sure. But are you saying you take my threats the same as you would from a criminal? Do you put me in the same niche as Charles Starkweather or something? Is internet talk the same level as a direct threat against one's loved ones?

Originally Posted by RR

Sadly, most other websites aren't much more accurate than Wikipedia is

A point I've failed to elaborate on until you said this. My fault.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Well, according to your world, the person doing the non-threating isn't a criminal (since, you know, they haven't done the act before), what reason would there be to take it seriously since it's done online?

Well, you run the risk of having a barratrous claim against another person simply because they told you to shut up in a very dark manner. Obviously, one could file harassment, I suppose - but that would only do well if these were towards a person directly like e-mail, Instant Messenger, snail mail and only if such things were done repeatedly.

I'm sure theres also another layer entirely that would involve things like evidence and any number of Computer Crimes Act that I don't know about.

However, what it boils down to is pretty much someone bumping into you and them saying "Fuck off". Is that worth dragging out?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by gukarma

You take this whole internet argument thing way too seriously. This wasn't even a real argument, just a lively conversation; there certainly was no reason to flame anyone.

Since when is pointing out the obvious flaw in someone's supposed logic flaming? Does that mean correcting someone is trolling? It sounds more like you're too afraid to step on toes for fear of the person's reaction.

Look, boy wonder, I corrected him on his obviously limited, naive point of view. If you want to question me on that, do it. Otherwise, kindly stick your nose somewhere else because this part of the conversation is over with.

Originally Posted by gukarma

Wikipedia is a far more complete source of information than other encyclopedias which may be taken to be more reliable.

Even acid said it cannot be quantified that any number of people - be it 1 or 13,000 - are qualified to post anything about any subject. I suggest you watch the Youtube link I posted earlier, as it demonstrates my point better than I have.

Originally Posted by gukarma

That's just childish.

So, according to your earlier statement, you're now flaming me.

Which is it? I don't have time for this nonsense.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by gukarma

Pointing out the flaws in an argument isn't flaming; I didn't call it that. I called your threat to hang me a flame.

...Because... I pointed out the flaws in your arguement?

I mean, you're complaining about how I phrased part of my post. Way to avoid the entire point of the post simply because I said something that - SHOCK! - made you react!

Originally Posted by gukarma

I just thought it was interesting that you armed yourself to the teeth as if to defend the universal truth of wikipedia's sucking or something. Saying that wikipedia is good seems to be a direct attack to your morals or something.

I'm sorry if I react badly to things that are obviously stupid. If you would, please go out and make the world LESS STUPID. This will allow me to be more relaxed.

Originally Posted by gukarma

I don't give a shit

You obviously do - you're replying again.

Originally Posted by gukarma

I said wikipedia is better than most other encyclopedias for chemistry and biology, and that's that.

Your opinion doesn't mean shit to anyone other than yourself. You've not said anything to prove any point of how your personal certification validates anything, let alone the cesspool that is Wikipedia. You've proven nothing to anyone other than being full of yourself. "I said it's this way and thats that" is nothing more than beating your chest and putting your head in the sand. Basically, you're trolling your opinion in a lame attempt to feign intelligence.

Go do it somewhere else and stop befouling the internet.

Originally Posted by gukarma

You obviously do since your post average is close to 10 posts per day.

"Oh wow! He make lots of posts! This makes my hollow claims about nothing completely factual!"

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

(in case you hadn't heard, the page on Elephants was locked a little later to prevent vandalism)?

So why don't they do that for every entry, as its prone to the same thing?

(Also - sorry for the delay, I assumed this thread was as dead as a Kennedy girlfriend)

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

They don't lock every subject because it's not being vandalized by people.

Given that Wikis are suppose to be a source of information, it certainly should be locked out because the best place to hide a lie is between two truths. I don't know about you but I don't know the exact details of, say, the Battle Of The Bulge but for all I know the Wiki "open door" policy allows someone to step in and make a minute change, even if it isn't based on fact. You can't tell me that the supposed staff on Wikipedia sees everything that happens.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

What you're asking is kinda like wondering why we just don't close every thread here after it's made to prevent trolling.

GFF doesn't claim to be a source of anything though. It's not like people come here to learn something and possibly be lied to.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Cal

one, two, one, two, etc.

I agree with this part of your post Cal - as well, as the FAGGOTS part. I had hoped that everyone forgot about this thread and moved on as I did, but leave it to RR to pull an Indiana Jones and dig this shit up.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Did you just call me one of the minibosses from Double Dragon?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?