wikipedia is becoming a joke
No but its always going to be a summation of opinion. Its quality is that the cream rises to the top, the more knowledgeable people are (and the more objective), the more accurate the entries become.
It's true that scum also rises to the top but they have a good system for filtering that out.
The Dutch wikipedia group are currently going through some spasms because there was a falling out amongst sysops. I think it will be controlled amicably though.
January 29th, 2006 10:34am
> I think it will be controlled amicably though.
If you were involved in the c2 wiki you will know these things go through cycles. As frustrating as it is, the alternative isn't any better.
I seriously think the guys in charge of the counter-vandalism unit know where to draw the line. The wikipedia article about my engineering college was put up by my college authorities themselves, projecting all their "righteous causes". It looked like an advertisement. And despite proof of misleading material, the article stays there as if it's the word of God. God save the students who read that crap and eventually join the college and suffer in silence (in India, that's the only resort when colleges are run by people who are above the law).
January 29th, 2006 11:00am
So what's to stop someone editing the entry?
That's how it works.
January 29th, 2006 11:03am
The point is about removing what's true and what's false.
If it becomes easy to remove what's true and insert false information, then there's no point allowing others to edit the article. Any further edit would look like vandalism.
January 29th, 2006 11:12am
>> Any further edit would look like vandalism. <<
No, it's a "Clarification". You need to watch more White House press conferences.
Besides, there's nothing stopping you from adding a section called "Students Viewpoint" or somesuch on the bottom of it.
Problem is that an ex-student seems to be in the counter-vandalism unit. And he seems to be a grade one ass licker who's hell bent on telling others that they have no idea of life.
What has the world come to ?
January 29th, 2006 11:58am
There shouldn't be a counter vandalism unit in a wiki. It defies the purpose of the "anyone can edit" idea.
So what happens when Ted Kennedy hires a staffer to watch his wiki entry and if anyone changes it, to change it right back?
Have there been tugs-of-war on wiki pages? How do they get resolved?
> How do they get resolved?
There's no way that I know of.
This is what they ended up with at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki. When you edit a page you see this:
"Advice to visitors: Spam is not allowed on this site. Unwanted links are removed before indexing is allowed. ...
Type the code word here then press to finish editing. Read MoreAboutCodes."
You can't edit a page anymore without knowing the code word, as described at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?MoreAboutCodes .
I added dozens of pages to that site. I don't even bother anymore and the site has become much less interesting.
Humans will be humans.
On wikipedia they get resolved using their aristocracry, those that have had a 1,000 posts or more on that wikipedia, there's also a kind of heirarchy which the man did explain but I lost the plot after a while.
January 30th, 2006 6:36am