quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Reynar squealed:
Who cares about the source? Since when do we fault the websites for when people do dumb things?The problem isn't Wikipedia, it's people thinking that Wikipedia is an accurate source of information.
Lots of stuff is free on the Internet, but is it good? Usually not.
Anyone suckered in by it deserves what they get.
Have you read the thread? Wikipedia is most certainly at fault, because it markets itself as a source of knowledge and a reference work when, in fact, there are no processes in place to ensure the accuracy or reliability of the information inside.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Optimus Prime:
So, just because anyone can post anything without restriction is not a reason to be wary of the information on a given web site?
I didn't say that. Personally, I think people should have the common sense to know that free junk off the internet comes with a price. And if they don't...well it's time for a life lesson.
quote:
Just because completely random people are publishing information with no process other than consensus amongst other random people to ensure accuracy or validity are publishing a reference work, that's no reason to distrust it?WTFO?
I'd hope they would distrust it. You keep laying blame on the website, which I disagree with. Wikipedia isn't a sign of the apocolypse, people buying into it is.
quote:
Reynar had this to say about Robocop:
The problem isn't Wikipedia, it's people thinking that Wikipedia is an accurate source of information.Lots of stuff is free on the Internet, but is it good? Usually not.
Anyone suckered in by it deserves what they get.
Which is exactly the point.
[EDIT- And Waisz, Wikipedia may very well be 100% correct. That isn't what this is about, this is about how the correct information is verified as correct while the incorrect information is discarded.] Ruvyen fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 04:22 PM.
quote:
Bloodsage wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Have you read the thread? Wikipedia is most certainly at fault, because it markets itself as a source of knowledge and a reference work when, in fact, there are no processes in place to ensure the accuracy or reliability of the information inside.
Indeed I have, thanks for asking.
So anyone who posts faulty information on the Internet is at fault? Should we all take up arms and sue these freebee websites most likely run out of a basement?
Would you care to go rip into The Onion next?
I find it interesting that you're attacking the creators of foolish things rather than the people who are stupid enough to fall for it.
I believe in personal responsibility, so if people want to make misleading websites, I have no problem with that. Anyone who falls for it just learned the hard way not to trust everything in the media *gasp*
quote:
Quoth Snugglits:
As a factual source, wikipedia is almost always right on the money. It's only on neutral/bias issues that it loses its value. And again, I think the nature of it is obvious to anyone who uses it.
That's not relevant, because anything it gets correct is in spite of the process rather than because of it. Everything in it must be independently verified before it can be trusted, which makes it useless as a reference--it's easier just to go to another source first, which has a reliable process to ensure the information is accurate and reviewed by experts.
Further, at any given time there is no assurance that the information is correct, because anyone can change anything at any time, and it's up to the "community" to correct any errors. The result is the entire thing is completely unreliable unless you already know the answer you seek.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Ruvyen Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Which is exactly the point.
Then you and I are in perfect agreement.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Reynar absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Wikipedia isn't a sign of the apocolypse, people buying into it is.
That's the point, which you've missed entirely. The fact that something like that exists and people defend it as a reference, is a seriously bad thing. The fact that it takes itself seriously and markets itself as a serious reference and educational toos, is a seriously bad thing.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Blindy. squealed:
I'm addressing your arguments. Your arguments really look like you've had a very small amount of experience with Wikipedia. I think that if you spent some more time on the site and maybe edited a few articles, you wouldn't be spending so much energy trying to get me to explain to you how the editoral process works on the site, nor making many of the generalizations you're making.
The very fact that I can go on the site and edit an article without first proving my qualifications in the area being discussed proves my entire point. You continuously--and erroneously--equate "public review" with "reliable way to ensure accuracy." That is simply not true. Peer review among experts in a subject using defined scientific and research methods leads to accuracy and reliability. Not consensus among the uninformed and unqualified.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage Model 2000 was programmed to say:
The very fact that I can go on the site and edit an article without first proving my qualifications in the area being discussed proves my entire point. You continuously--and erroneously--equate "public review" with "reliable way to ensure accuracy." That is simply not true. Peer review among experts in a subject using defined scientific and research methods leads to accuracy and reliability. Not consensus among the uninformed and unqualified.
You seem to be admitting that you're arguing purely from speculation, and have absolutely no experience with the subject at hand.
But I'm too uninformed and unqualified to hold these opinions, aren't I? 
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Sean absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
You seem to be admitting that you're arguing purely from speculation, and have absolutely no experience with the subject at hand.But I'm too uninformed and unqualified to hold these opinions, aren't I?
You do better when you're quiet; it prevents stupid things like that from slipping out.
Did you miss where I quoted its own FAQ, that explicity stated that anyone can edit anything, and that the only way corrections are made is when other completely random people change it back? Did you miss the point where there is no process to verify accuracy--according to the site itself--prior to publication?
The process is fatally flawed, and results in information that cannot be trusted. Unless you'd care to point out something in the site's process that corrects or negates the objections that have been raised? Or are you like Blindy, and believe that consensus equals truth?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Knight Rider:
That's the point, which you've missed entirely. The fact that something like that exists and people defend it as a reference, is a seriously bad thing. The fact that it takes itself seriously and markets itself as a serious reference and educational toos, is a seriously bad thing.
Clicking on the main page of Wikipedia you see in big bold letters:
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that **anyone can edit**.
If this does not scream "warning, possible bad information inside" nothing will.
Websites shouldn't have to censor themselves because of stupid people. I don't lay blame on Wikipedia for having a free encyclopedia on the Internet.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Bloodsage:
You do better when you're quiet; it prevents stupid things like that from slipping out.
You're funny. Because you're a joke. You haven't realized it yet - or maybe you have, and you embrace it like something warm and soft like a security blanket - but you're a fucking joke around here now.
Once upon a time you actually put effort into arguments and discussions, and actually try to 'win', by doing that forgotten goal of convincing the other person that your viewpoint on the issue is correct and theirs is incorrect. But now you've moved past it, or given up on us poor simpletons, and just parrot your stance over and over again while lacing it with personal insults.
Your argument process is fatally flawed. 
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Sean Model 2000 was programmed to say:
You're funny. Because you're a joke. You haven't realized it yet - or maybe you have, and you embrace it like something warm and soft like a security blanket - but you're a fucking joke around here now.Once upon a time you actually put effort into arguments and discussions, and actually try to 'win', by doing that forgotten goal of convincing the other person that your viewpoint on the issue is correct and theirs is incorrect. But now you've moved past it, or given up on us poor simpletons, and just parrot your stance over and over again while lacing it with personal insults.
Your argument process is fatally flawed.
Pretty much, yes.
quote:
Sean had this to say about dark elf butts:
You're funny. Because you're a joke. You haven't realized it yet - or maybe you have, and you embrace it like something warm and soft like a security blanket - but you're a fucking joke around here now.Once upon a time you actually put effort into arguments and discussions, and actually try to 'win', by doing that forgotten goal of convincing the other person that your viewpoint on the issue is correct and theirs is incorrect. But now you've moved past it, or given up on us poor simpletons, and just parrot your stance over and over again while lacing it with personal insults.
Your argument process is fatally flawed.
More or less, that's how I'm seeing this thread too.
I know no one gives a shit but...
Jesus 'Sage, you just do not get it.
quote:
Blindy. wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
I'm addressing your arguments. Your arguments really look like you've had a very small amount of experience with Wikipedia. I think that if you spent some more time on the site and maybe edited a few articles, you wouldn't be spending so much energy trying to get me to explain to you how the editoral process works on the site, nor making many of the generalizations you're making.
I think that if you spent some more time doing crack, you wouldn't be spending so much energy trying to get me to explain to you why I do crack, nor making any generalisations about people on crack.
Doesn't work that well, does it?
quote:
Sean impressed everyone with:
Once upon a time you actually put effort into arguments and discussions, and actually try to 'win', by doing that forgotten goal of convincing the other person that your viewpoint on the issue is correct and theirs is incorrect. But now you've moved past it, or given up on us poor simpletons, and just parrot your stance over and over again while lacing it with personal insults.
Which was exactly what Blindy was doing. He wasn't giving us too much more to argue with him about, so all we could do was restate our points.
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Reynar squealed:
Clicking on the main page of Wikipedia you see in big bold letters:Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that **anyone can edit**.
If this does not scream "warning, possible bad information inside" nothing will.
Websites shouldn't have to censor themselves because of stupid people. I don't lay blame on Wikipedia for having a free encyclopedia on the Internet.
It's not an encyclopedia, which you don't seem to grasp. By masquerading as a legitimate source--and being defended as one, here--it perpetuates a fraud. It even claims that its process results is actual knowledge. The problem with the site itself is that it perpetuates a fraud. Relying on others being smart enough to see through their smoke and mirrors and not trust them doesn't change the fact that it's pretending to be a legitimate source of factual information, when it is not.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Ruvyen + Ruvyen = 2Ruvyen:
I think that if you spent some more time doing crack, you wouldn't be spending so much energy trying to get me to explain to you why I do crack, nor making any generalisations about people on crack.Doesn't work that well, does it?
Actually it does, you fucking retard.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Sean absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
You're funny. Because you're a joke. You haven't realized it yet - or maybe you have, and you embrace it like something warm and soft like a security blanket - but you're a fucking joke around here now.Once upon a time you actually put effort into arguments and discussions, and actually try to 'win', by doing that forgotten goal of convincing the other person that your viewpoint on the issue is correct and theirs is incorrect. But now you've moved past it, or given up on us poor simpletons, and just parrot your stance over and over again while lacing it with personal insults.
Your argument process is fatally flawed.
No, my process and the arguments within it are quite correct, as usual. I've even repeatedly pointed out which fallacies you morons are quoting in your arguments, but the only retorts have been either Blindy's, "Nuh-uh!" or both of your ridiculous argument that, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, the process is reliable and accurate. . .but apparently it can't be explained and must be "experienced," as both of you have stupidly asserted.
Never mind actually correcting your flawed arguments, or even intelligently responding to the points raised against it. That's apparently beyond your limited capacity. Exactly why do I owe it to you to take your stupidity seriously?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while OtakuPenguin gently hums:
More or less, that's how I'm seeing this thread too.I know no one gives a shit but...
Jesus 'Sage, you just do not get it.
Don't get what? That stupid arguments should be treated as valid? That a process to create consensus among a bunch of random people can magically create a source for reliable, accurate information?
You pretty much prove my entire point with that little gem.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
A thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters couldn't ever match Bloodsage:
No, my process and the arguments within it are quite correct, as usual. I've even repeatedly pointed out which fallacies you morons are quoting in your arguments, but the only retorts have been either Blindy's, "Nuh-uh!" or both of your ridiculous argument that, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, the process is reliable and accurate. . .but apparently it can't be explained and must be "experienced," as both of you have stupidly asserted.Never mind actually correcting your flawed arguments, or even intelligently responding to the points raised against it. That's apparently beyond your limited capacity. Exactly why do I owe it to you to take your stupidity seriously?
What evidence? You've yet to provide any sliver of evidence. You just state over and over "Anyone can edit it. They don't make sure you're an expert first." as if it proves something.
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about Pirotess:
What evidence? You've yet to provide any sliver of evidence. You just state over and over "Anyone can edit it. They don't make sure you're an expert first." as if it proves something.
And when we show him the experts, he says there just aren't enough of them!
It's madness. Inside Bloodsage, I mean, because he's gone a little crazy and detached from reality in his old age.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Blindy. squealed:
Actually it does, you fucking retard.
No, it doesn't, as any reasonably bright third-grader can figure out. How can you assert that one must actually burn oneself on a stove before asserting that one shouldn't put one's hand on a hot burner? How can you say one must actually experience a horrific disease in order to discuss its physical or psychological effects, or the danger posed by contagion? I guess all literature teachers must have to have actually written the works they teach, eh? And it's not valid to write literary criticism unless one is also a published author in that particular genre, huh?
Do you have the faintest idea what constitutes a valid argument, and what doesn't?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Quoth Sean:
And when we show him the experts, he says there just aren't enough of them!It's madness. Inside Bloodsage, I mean, because he's gone a little crazy and detached from reality in his old age.
Where were the experts? There were very few experts listed on that page you linked, and none of the one's I looked at confined their editing to their actual fields of expertise.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Blindy. squealed:
What evidence? You've yet to provide any sliver of evidence. You just state over and over "Anyone can edit it. They don't make sure you're an expert first." as if it proves something.
It does prove that the information is unreliable. You've yet to show that there's a process other than, "Let's hope someone who knows better sees it and corrects it," to ensure the information is accurate. Because there isn't one, according to the site administration's FAQ.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Where were the experts? There were very few experts listed on that page you linked, and none of the one's I looked at confined their editing to their actual fields of expertise.
They were right there, where you say there weren't, and now say there are, but apparently they don't matter because I'm so fucking confused by your senseless bitching that I don't even know what you're trying to say?
It's not a real encyclopedia? Well no shit, Sherlock, it's only an encyclopia in name, because otherwise it doesn't have an accurate description. Aside from your loltastic "useless misinformation" answers, that is.
That it doesn't guarantee validity? STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES. Wait, hold on, neither does Britannica. Or Encarta. Or Columbia.
It's a wealth of information that trouncs the fuck out of standard encyclopedias because - by design - it isn't limited to historical and biological subjects. But none of that means anything to you because it's.. what? Because it allows all information, and then rejects that which is inapplicable.
Holy fuck it sounds like an open source encyclope- oh wait a second 
Just get angry and stop responding, like you always do, because this joke is running out and nobody's 1) convinced you're right, except for Ruvyen who has a long history of retardation, or 2) amused any longer by your senile rantings.
quote:
It does prove that the information is unreliable. You've yet to show that there's a process other than, "Let's hope someone who knows better sees it and corrects it," to ensure the information is accurate. Because there isn't one, according to the site administration's FAQ.
Articles experiencing heavy edit streaks are flagged for review by administration, and locked from further public changes until someone of authority steps in. What more could you possibly fucking want? Sean fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 06:16 PM.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Punky Brewster:
It's not an encyclopedia, which you don't seem to grasp. By masquerading as a legitimate source--and being defended as one, here--it perpetuates a fraud. It even claims that its process results is actual knowledge. The problem with the site itself is that it perpetuates a fraud. Relying on others being smart enough to see through their smoke and mirrors and not trust them doesn't change the fact that it's pretending to be a legitimate source of factual information, when it is not.
I hope you don't think Wikipedia is the first try to and pretend to be legitimate when they're not.
I never once said that they are factucual or legitimate, I agree in that they are undoubtably a horrible source for reliable information.
Oh no, a website giving out faulty information; say it isn't so!? ...it's the damn Internet, you can put whatever you want in it for the most part. If every website that posted unreliable information while preaching that it was real was dooming our planet as you so say, we would have been long dead. Reynar fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 06:26 PM.
Wikipedia is a bunch of amateurs, yes even the editors, playing at making something in the shape of something professional. I could make an automobile completely out of wood (engine, chassis, wheels, everything) but I wouldn't go around telling people it was as good as the real thing, or worth thousands of dollars.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Wikipedia is a bunch of amateurs, yes even the editors, playing at making something in the shape of something professional. I could make an automobile completely out of wood (engine, chassis, wheels, everything) but I wouldn't go around telling people it was as good as the real thing, or worth thousands of dollars.
No, if it was something professional, they would undoubtably be charging for the service.
Anyone can throw together a webpage where people contribute random stuff. But if you want a professionally backed reference media, you'll have to pay up.
That being said, I still think Wikipedia is spiffy, I've used it a couple times and it has been reasonably accurate. But would I trust it for vital information? Heck no.
quote:
Reynar thought about the meaning of life:
No, if it was something professional, they would undoubtably be charging for the service.Anyone can throw together a webpage where people contribute random stuff. But if you want a professionally backed reference media, you'll have to pay up.
That being said, I still think Wikipedia is spiffy, I've used it a couple times and it has been reasonably accurate. But would I trust it for vital information? Heck no.
I said the SHAPE of something professional. Not cobbling together something professional. Hence my analogy. A wooden car is the right shape, but the substance? no.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael, what the hell are you doin' out here? You oughta be in bed.
I said the SHAPE of something professional. Not cobbling together something professional. Hence my analogy. A wooden car is the right shape, but the substance? no.
You were reaching pretty far for that one.
It's not something people hear about.
And let's examine an "expert" or two, shall we?
First, there's this guy. While he seems to have attended a lot of different schools (keeping in mind, of course, that none of these qualifications are actually verified, he doesn't seem to have got a degree out of the process that he's willing to share. And he claims expertise in quite a wide range of subjects, oh my! He's here to save the day through light activity on weekends.
Wow, I'm feeling better about this project already!
And look! Here's someone claiming expertise in biology!
And here's another biology expert! He also claims his A-level exams qualify him to edit several quite diverse subjects. Since when does taking the SAT qualify one to edit an encyclopedia?
liverkeenan#Biographical_Details" TARGET=_blank>Here's a guy listed as a law expert. Funny, not only does he not list any qualifications at all, he claims to expert in both urology and radio astronomy.
I counted exactly four people on that list claiming PhDs next to their names, and 2 others claiming Master's degrees. That pretty much confirms what I've said: that is not a page of experts, even if there was a process whereby people could only contribute in their fields.
So what exactly is your point about me being stupid because I don't accept these people as qualified to edit an encyclopedia?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Reynar startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
I hope you don't think Wikipedia is the first try to and pretend to be legitimate when they're not.I never once said that they are factucual or legitimate, I agree in that they are undoubtably a horrible source for reliable information.
Oh no, a website giving out faulty information; say it isn't so!? ...it's the damn Internet, you can put whatever you want in it for the most part. If every website that posted unreliable information while preaching that it was real was dooming our planet as you so say, we would have been long dead.
It's not the fact that they're trying to get away with something that is the problem, but rather the fact that society is starting to accept such things as legitimate, and people actually defend the process as capable of reliably producing accurate information.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
But I'll play along;
Nowhere in my five (six, really, this is seven) replies have I alleged that everything on Wikipedia is accurate and should be taken at face value; I just think you're a fucking moron for discounting such an invaluable information tool for completely idiotic reasons.
Absolutely everything about the project is voluntary, even registering accounts and supplying information about yourself. Yes, the majority of people editing articles are completely unknown - but who fucking cares? Aside from you.
Brittanica and Encarta (laffo) are great resources, sure, but they're not infallible, and neither is Wikipedia. The advantage Wikipedia has is constant moderation - by the same people who spot errors in Brittanica, mind you, the people who fucking read it - and almost real-time updates to fix broken information.
It's not something people hear about.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
It's not something people hear about.
Roman soldiers, like the athletes of today, grew up to be coddled and pacified in the last years of the empire. They threatened mutiny every time they were forced to make camp, claiming that it was too much to do to build fortifications, sleep for a few hours, then break camp the next day before a long march.
Eventually, the army caved in and outlawed excessive marching, breaking of camp, etc.
Neat!
quote:
Sean spewed forth this undeniable truth:
...nobody's 1) convinced you're right, except for Ruvyen who has a long history of retardation...
Not completely. 'Sage does have a point, in that Wikipedia is not a very reliable source of information due to the way it operates. On the other hand, it's the Internet. There's no real standard for how any website should operate, anyone can throw up anything they want. So, I agree more with common sense than 'Sage.
quote:
Sean startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
So suddenly it's an encyclopedia again? And, please, don't start addressing our points just because you've run out of insults to our intelligence or ways to say "IT'S RIGHT BECAUSE I SAY IT'S RIGHT."But I'll play along;
Nowhere in my five (six, really, this is seven) replies have I alleged that everything on Wikipedia is accurate and should be taken at face value; I just think you're a fucking moron for discounting such an invaluable information tool for completely idiotic reasons.
Absolutely everything about the project is voluntary, even registering accounts and supplying information about yourself. Yes, the majority of people editing articles are completely unknown - but who fucking cares? Aside from you.
Brittanica and Encarta (laffo) are great resources, sure, but they're not infallible, and neither is Wikipedia. The advantage Wikipedia has is constant moderation - by the same people who spot errors in Brittanica, mind you, the people who fucking read it - and almost real-time updates to fix broken information.
This is your stupidest post yet. "It's a great source of information, so who cares that it's completely unreliable because it's posted and edited by unknown people with unknown qualifications and changes constantly at the whim of anyone willing to take the time to change it, and there's no process to ensure accuracy!?"
You concede my point, and then tell me I'm stupid for not trusting the information. That's beyond stupid.
As far as your assertion about Britannica go, you're indulging in the fallacy of false dichotomy. Just because neither is perfect does not mean they are therefore equally inaccurate. Britannica goes to huge lengths prior to publication to ensure the information is as accurate as possible, and employs people actually trained to do that. It is also fixed after publication, so one gets the same information consistently.
Wikipedia provides no process capable of consistently producing reliable information; Britannica does. Wikipedia relies on random people to provide content and catch mistakes; Britannica employs experts for both.
Do you even know what is at issue, here? Exactly what is it about Wikipedia that ensures accuracy? Are you really so stupid you think consensus among random people and truth are the same thing? Do you know the difference between peer review among experts in a field, and "everybody review"?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Sean squealed:
Nope, still broken. And I don't really care; he's just one of thousands of people.
You're the one who claimed that the information on that page rendered my arguments invalid, when in fact it confirms the fact that any random idiot can edit any topic he pleases, and there is no expert oversight to ensure a reasonable standard of accuracy.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
