SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Nov 13 2007 03:09 pm

I hate Wikipedia. It's OK for trivia and when you need quick, brief information on something. But it's hard a good source, or a reliable source, of information. The site is policed by self-indulgent, self-important bureacrats who are not accountable to anyone and who arbitrarily revert helpful new changes based on no real criteria other than a "I've been here longer than you, so I'm smarter than you." mentality.

So now, Wikipedia is having a donation drive where they're panhandling to keep their stupidass site up. If you donate, you can submit a comment which will be added to a database of randomly displayed quotes that will appear in the site header. Here are two of the dumbest ones:

"Knowlege in it's purest form. Thank you." — Anonymous

"I'd rather read Wikipedia than my college textbooks." — William R."

People, for as little as five dollars, you help make Wikipedia better. Donate, and submit a comment about Wikipedia sucks. That, or plug SydLexia.com. It'll be hilarious.

Posted: Nov 13 2007 03:36 pm

"Wikipedia is one of the few reservoirs of hope left." - Anonymous

What the hell does that even mean?

I'm getting frustrated with Wikipedia because it's phasing out the little things that made it unique. They're cracking down on trivia sections for God's sake. The whole reason I liked Wikipedia WAS the trivia. I liked learning little things about games or TV shows or people that were interesting but not, y'know, incredibly important to the big picture. Like Courage the Cowardly Dog had bundles of articles about, like, major characters and minor characters and every episode and stuff. Now it's all gone.

Another thing is the demand for citations. When every sentence in an article has the little "citation needed" note, I get a little irritated. Especially when it's about a game, in which case you don't need a citation, just play the damn game and see for yourself. "Portrait of Ruin allows the player to use two characters at once, opening new strategies and abilities.[original research?]"

But this thread is about the donation drive, so I'm going to stifle myself for now.

Posted: Nov 13 2007 05:01 pm

Wikipedia's motto should be "Where the whole is less than the sum of its parts."

It's good primarily for entertainment, never serious research. It's about as academically useful as the local interest section of the weekday paper.

Posted: Nov 13 2007 05:04 pm

I was reading the article on Huntington's Disease, which is a terminal illness affecting someone I know, and in the middle of one of the paragraphs, it says "i think your teh hott!!!s"

I am angered

Joined: Nov 12 2007 Location: London Posts: 8

I once looked up Christianity on Wiki, and was greeted with a message saying Christian's were going to hell and discriminate against everyone. Oh, and they're evil bastards.

I gave up on Wiki after that.

Posted: Nov 13 2007 07:09 pm

I tried to look up Kazhakstan and it linked to the page for Borat

Joined: Nov 12 2007 Location: London Posts: 8

ross_rifle113 wrote:

I tried to look up Kazhakstan and it linked to the page for Borat

OMG Wiki is racist? (or just extremely stereotypical)

Posted: Nov 13 2007 07:16 pm

Or, once again, the "Online Encyclopedia that anyone can edit" got its shit hacked. It's fixed now

Posted: Nov 13 2007 07:56 pm

Wikipedia definitely has a liberal bias. It has actually gotten much better though. There was a time, about two years ago, when the Bill Clinton wiki was locked due to "repeated vandalism" and the page that was up made only brief references to his various scandals. Meanwhile the page on Ronald Reagan was not so much a biography as it was a one-sided mean-spirited indictment of the deceased former president. Both pages are now a lot more balanced.

Still, the site is not without its flaws. An article on Fahrenheit 9/11 talks about an essay that Dave Kopel and Christopher Hitchens wrote about the film's accurary, but not does not provide the link to it.

http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

The article does, however, includes a link to Moore's rebuttal to his critics, which lists his sources. And if you attempted to add the above link into the Fahrenheit 9/11 page, someone would revert it with 24 hours under the pretense of relevance.

Posted: Nov 13 2007 09:14 pm

I liked Wikipedia back when it wasn't "The Anal-Retentive Encyclopedia". I miss giant trivia sections, dammit!

Joined: Nov 12 2007 Location: London Posts: 8

I prefer Encyclopidia Dramatica. More accurate.

Posted: Nov 13 2007 09:25 pm

Funnier, yes. More accurate, hell no. Better, you bet your white* ass.

*Or for Bomberman, black.

Joined: Nov 12 2007 Location: London Posts: 8

Char Aznable wrote:

Funnier, yes. More accurate, hell no. Better, you bet your white* ass.

*Or for Bomberman, black.

My jibe at Wiki failed Sad

Posted: Nov 13 2007 11:27 pm

Dramatica is more accurate. They teach you about all sorts of stuff that those bastards at Wikipedia don't want you to know about. Like Troll Valhalla: http://www.trollvalhalla.com/

Posted: Nov 14 2007 04:02 am

Wikipedia should be two things.

1) A starting point for research on a topic, when you need to know the basics. This is where citatations are paramount. Real sources or lists of good sources on the subject. If you really want to know more about Luthorinism(like when its creator nailed the 95 Theses to the door of the castle church of Metropolis, printing on paper kryptonite) you go to the library.

2) A compilation of all the personally significant information that echoes in the minds of people with the time and energy to post on a website that offers no promise that it will not be deleted by the next day. Wikipedia seems genuinely surprised that people post pop culture instead of say 19th century politics in Belgium. People that can offer actual insight into the above have probably written a book for a college course or a library, so look there if that sort of stuff gets you off.

Oh, and Char, my ass is not white. Ask your mom, she'll vouch for me.

Posted: Nov 14 2007 05:39 am

I like to go to wikipedia for crap like wrestler histories and video game oddities, to kill time at work. But other than that...

Joined: Feb 24 2006 Posts: 2578

Syd Lexia wrote:

If you donate, you can submit a comment which will be added to a database of randomly displayed quotes that will appear in the site header.

The real question is why can't we edit those quotes? I mean, it's Wikipedia after all... Twisted Evil

Posted: Nov 14 2007 11:50 pm

And brown ass. Happy?

Posted: Nov 15 2007 12:00 am

I spent 2 hours just now reading about Batman characters. It's a good thing to have around.

Now I will go read about Lex Luthor.

Posted: Nov 15 2007 12:06 am

-bjork- wrote:

I spent 2 hours just now reading about Batman characters. It's a good thing to have around.

Now I will go read about Lex Luthor.

He's a cake stealing bastard, what else is there to know?

Posted: Nov 15 2007 07:03 am

I cant stop laughing

Posted: Nov 15 2007 11:48 am

That's what I did @ work yesterday. On breaks and in between calls I read about Two-Face. Today I will read about the Joker Smile

Joined: Nov 12 2007 Location: London Posts: 8

Knyte wrote:

-bjork- wrote:

I spent 2 hours just now reading about Batman characters. It's a good thing to have around.

Now I will go read about Lex Luthor.

He's a cake stealing bastard, what else is there to know?

hahahahhahaha. I like the "and that's terrible" bit. It's like someone was really disappointed in him.

You can imagine someone saying "dude, he took FORTY cakes! 40 damn cakes! THAT'S LIKE 4 TENS!!!"

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Automatica wrote:

I like the "and that's terrible" bit.

Yeah, that's the best part. It even became a catchphrase over at superdickery.com, which displays funny comics panels/covers.

Posted: Nov 16 2007 03:28 am

Someone thinks Wikipedia is "the epitome of free speech". They obviously don't know the site very well.