Ken Lay Dead; Wikipedia Confused

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 LeHah

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.

You say Wiki doesn't work because it's open to everyone, and thus will be edited by shitheads. I say Wiki does work because it's open to everyone, and thus those same shithead will be corrected by people that actually know what the are talking about. Your dislike for Wiki has been well well documented here. I understand that is simply not going to change.

How many of those 12,985 that don't know anything about Tipler's Rotating Cylinder are actually going to edit it? And if a couple of them do, those that actually do know what they are talking about will edit it back. You can find 5 wiki articles with false info, I can find 5000 with accurate information.

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.

Quote:

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.

Really? E-violence? Come on now, this isn't gamefaqs.

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

Originally Posted by LeHah

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.

So now in order for something to be a threat you need to have done it before? And, as acid pointed out, you kinda forgot the booting of ass in your post.

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Honestly, I think Wikipedia is a wonderful source of information. Of course, any information you find should be taken with a grain of salt, especially if the article in question does not cite its sources. It suits my purposes, certainly. There's no better way to find huge amounts of information on thousands of different subjects. Furthermore, the general style of organization appeals to me. And just for the record, Wikipedia articles aren't generally considered to be "paper encyclopedia" quality until they're featured. So, information from featured articles is to be valued above all others.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Meh - I'd never use it on a term paper or anything that required accountability... But if I was interested in knowing, say Anniston, Alabama (When I was wondering what sort of hazardous materials would cause the FAA to issue a TFR for that general area).

FELIPE NO

I take it everyone here has seen this...

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

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I've always wondered this, if Wikipedia can be changed so easily by a few clicks of the mouse, then why do people use it for more then just entertainment purposes? I mean shouldn't they come up with someway to stop this...Like maybe create a way for someone to verify the edits before allowing to appear on the site or something along those lines. Or is that expecting too much of them?

I don't use wikipedia unless I really, really, REALLY have to. Other times I just search for sites using a helpful search engine that are more researched then wikipeadia is. Heck...some fan sites are more creditable then Wikipedia! Personally...I think they should get they're act together and make the site harder to edit like I said.

And on a some what unrelated note...I'm surprised someone didn't add 'he got divine punishment from lord Kira' to the long list of the causes of death. Okay that was a bad joke, sorry about that.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by LeHah

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.

You're right. I cannot verify that everyone who makes a post does research. Yes, there are people that don't know what they are talking about editing things. However my entire point, and if you had bothered to actually read the thread than spend your time staring at the reply window trying to come up with witty retorts, is that these people will be corrected by those who actually do know what they are talking about. That while yes, there will be errors, overall the self policing style does work for Wikipedia.

Quote:

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.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Certainly stands to reason. By this point, the snide nature of "e-threats" is responded with the equally snide nature of a dismissal.

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.

Quote:

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.

I wasn't pointing out the lameness of your threat, I was pointing out the seeming contradiction in calling something stupid on the internet while throwing in lame insults over the internet. But this required combining two slightly different trains of thought, so I guess I can see how one could get confused.

Originally Posted by Outlaw

I don't use wikipedia unless I really, really, REALLY have to. Other times I just search for sites using a helpful search engine that are more researched then wikipeadia is. Heck...some fan sites are more creditable then Wikipedia! Personally...I think they should get they're act together and make the site harder to edit like I said.

Sadly, most other websites aren't much more accurate than Wikipedia is (at least in my experience). I've actually found Wikipedia to be a decent starting place for research, using their links to external sites as places for more indepth reading (since often the include .edu or larger reliable websites).

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

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

Originally Posted by LeHah

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?

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?

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 RacinReaver

Sadly, most other websites aren't much more accurate than Wikipedia is (at least in my experience). I've actually found Wikipedia to be a decent starting place for research, using their links to external sites as places for more indepth reading (since often the include .edu or larger reliable websites).

True, it depends on what you're looking for. I also go there for the outside links. Some of them are actualy pretty good and it saves time rather then going through a million sites looking for one particular subject...espcially if you're short on time and need to double check something. But most of the time if you're using the Wikipedia entries and the entries only without checking out other sites...then how can you say all the info you used is 100% accurate? And alot of people happen to do just that....that's what I'm trying to say....

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by LeHah

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?

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.

All I said is I disagreed with Acid because for some subjects, namely chemistry and biology, Wikipedia is a far more complete source of information than other encyclopedias which may be taken to be more reliable.

That's it. No reason to cry a river or threaten genocide.

Quote:

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

That's just childish.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by LeHah

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.

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.

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 don't give a shit, I said wikipedia is better than most other encyclopedias for chemistry and biology, and that's that. Take it or leave it.

Quote:

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

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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

Whatever. You win at the internet.

Happy now?

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

Originally Posted by LeHah

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.

Doesn't the Colbert Report clip just verify that incorrect things on Wikipedia will be reverted to their correct form by one of the numerous wikinazis that live there (in case you hadn't heard, the page on Elephants was locked a little later to prevent vandalism)?

I was speaking idiomatically.

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)

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Reviving an old thread because I've been away for a long time.

They don't lock every subject because it's not being vandalized by people. What you're asking is kinda like wondering why we just don't close every thread here after it's made to prevent trolling.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

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

Because then the thing may as well be a hardcover edition-bound product in 499485565575 volumes, by the time it takes to create and update content.


'LeHah we're all happy with this compromise between accuracy and flexibility, it is sensible/statistically proven'

'BUT FAGGOTS STILL HAVE ACCESS'

'But that's okay, their capacity for fucking shit up is still very sma--'

'BUT THE FAGGOTS, THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING, OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE ON THE INTERNET GOD THE INTERNET IF FULL OF FAGGOTS'

one, two, one, two, etc.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.