quote:
Blindy. had this to say about Cuba:
Go fuck yourself with a sword you snooty bitch.
Shouldn't you be banging your head against a wall somewhere?
quote:
Blindy. was listening to Cher while typing:
But there is no reason to prejudicially believe that the information on wikipedia is inaccurate.
Oh Blindy, when will your wacky antics cease? 
quote:
Alidane startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
Pretty much every one of your arguments stems from the use of Wikipedia as a resource, which is correct--it's not a resource.With that firmly in mind, I'd like to point out that it's still a lot of information, whether it's true or not. While its usefullness is diminished considerably by the problems you've eloquently and repeatedly pointed out, the site is still of great use to those people who are looking for a general overview of a topic, a starting place, or something of casual interest. The fact that people take information on Wikipedia at face value is not entirely the responsibility of the owners and editors of the site; it's a public Wiki, for fuck's sake. It's not a technology built for information integrity--it's built for open communication. While you can convincingly argue that Wikipedia panders to the fallacy of consensus, you can still skim off the cream, so to speak.
Also, Blindy...to claim that Wikipedia's "not inaccurate by design" is not truthful--it's certainly not designed to be accurate.
To be clear, I'm just trying to point out that the site and technology are of use to society as an "information dump", rather than a real resource. People's misuse of Wikipedia is, in your words, distateful indeed.
Edit: removed superfluous adjectives. Bad habit.
It's useful in exactly the same way as a chat room or bulletin board.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Blindy. absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Fuck you, all I said was
1) It is potentially the least biased source available.
and
2) It is not inaccurate by design.
Unfortunately, lack of bias has nothing to do with accuracy. It's a non-issue.
Further, it is inaccurate by design, because there is no process in place to ensure accuracy. That's pretty much a "by definition" kind of a thing, so I've no idea what your point is supposed to be. Anything that turns out accurate is in spite of the process, not because of it.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
This one time, at Blindy. camp:
But there is no reason to prejudicially believe that the information on wikipedia is inaccurate.
It's on the Internet, FFS. How much truthful information can you find on the Internet versus complete and total shit?
You've shown again that you have no ability to critically analyse your information sources. The guys that made and edited that wiki article you just read might be experts in the field...or they might not. How do you know? Well, you don't, really. The Internet is completely anonymous, and so is Wikipedia. That, alone, should set off warning bells.
If I were to tell you that a meteor was going to hit Earth in 30 seconds, would you believe me? No, that's bullshit. Who the fuck am I to say that shit? You don't know. Why don't you know? Because it's the Internet. So, you can safely assume that I'd be spouting crap.
That is what critical thinking's all about. Just because someone says something somewhere, doesn't make it true.
quote:
Quoth Blindy.:
But there is no reason to prejudicially believe that the information on wikipedia is inaccurate.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Fazum'Zen Fastfist fucked around with this message on 11-30-2005 at 01:03 AM.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
The whole point of Wikipedia is to have a reference to show people just how many completely fucked up things Jack Thompson has done in his attention-whoring life. I used to tell my coworkers all the stupid, weird-ass shit he's done just to get the camera on him, and they never beleived me until I showed them the Wikipedia article. "Nobody is that stupid", they said. "Nobody could possibly do that kind of shit for reals," they said.
The Jack Thompson Wikipedia article is a hilarious read. For that reason and that reason alone, I like Wikipedia.
quote:
Bloodsage likes to say stupid stuff like:
Unfortunately, lack of bias has nothing to do with accuracy. It's a non-issue.Further, it is inaccurate by design, because there is no process in place to ensure accuracy. That's pretty much a "by definition" kind of a thing, so I've no idea what your point is supposed to be. Anything that turns out accurate is in spite of the process, not because of it.
There is a process to ensure accuracy, you just don't think it works, because they warn you in the FAQ that it might not work every now and then.
quote:
Quoth Blindy.:
There is a process to ensure accuracy, you just don't think it works, because they warn you in the FAQ that it might not work every now and then.
Why are you still being stupid in exactly the same way?
Explain to the world how allowing anyone at all, regardless of qualifications, to edit anything at any time for any reason, is a process to ensure accuracy. Explain how a system that functions purely on consensus building ensures accuracy?
The FAQ doesn't warn that it might not work every now and then; it says straight up that the only method to find and identify errors is to hope someone who knows better reviews and changes the page. There is no process whatsoever to keep errors out in the first place. Even someone as blindingly stupid as you seem to be should recognize the difference.
The process is one that produces exactly one thing: consensus. Consensus != accuracy. If anything at all ends up accurate, it is despite the process and not because of it.
Unless you'd also care to explain the logical process by which consensus creates accuracy?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage needs the precioussses:
Why are you still being stupid in exactly the same way?Explain to the world how allowing anyone at all, regardless of qualifications, to edit anything at any time for any reason, is a process to ensure accuracy. Explain how a system that functions purely on consensus building ensures accuracy?
The FAQ doesn't warn that it might not work every now and then; it says straight up that the only method to find and identify errors is to hope someone who knows better reviews and changes the page. There is no process whatsoever to keep errors out in the first place. Even someone as blindingly stupid as you seem to be should recognize the difference.
The process is one that produces exactly one thing: consensus. Consensus != accuracy. If anything at all ends up accurate, it is despite the process and not because of it.
Unless you'd also care to explain the logical process by which consensus creates accuracy?
Editing following the guidelines. You always completely ignore those, don't you?
quote:
Blindy. attempted to be funny by writing:
Editing following the guidelines. You always completely ignore those, don't you?
Do you even know what a guideline is, you stupid shit?
quote:
Check out the big brain on nem-x!
This thread sucks for being so long.
quote:
Did someone say Ruvyen:
Do you even know what a guideline is, you stupid shit?
Why aren't you wearing your helmet? You could hurt yourself.
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Why aren't you wearing your helmet? You could hurt yourself.
Because I had to give it to you. You've got few enough brain cells already, we can't have you losing any more.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Blindy. absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Editing following the guidelines. You always completely ignore those, don't you?
The problem with that answer, of course, is that following the guidelines is entirely optional and there is no process in place to ensure it happens or to verify they are followed prior to editing. Further, even if all of the guidelines are followed, the goal is consensus, which is not accuracy.
All of these alleged processes are entirely voluntary, and rely on peer pressure for enforcement.
So, in fact, you are wrong as usual.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
OtakuPenguin thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
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.
Hey look, OP comes out of the woodwork with a "Me too!" and disappears.
quote:
Densetsu thought about the meaning of life:
Hey look, OP comes out of the woodwork with a "Me too!" and disappears.
And no one seems to care.
It's probably for the best, anyway. Mental midgets such as OP get completely squashed in flame threads.
quote:
Densetsu enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Hey look, OP comes out of the woodwork with a "Me too!" and disappears.
Hey look, Densetsu comes out of the woodwork with a "LOL. OP said Me too!" and disappears.
Also: Hey look, Manticore comes out of the woodwork with an "LOL. Desnetsu comes out of the woodework with a 'lol. OP said Me too!' and disappears" and disappears.
quote:
Manticore had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Hey look, Densetsu comes out of the woodwork with a "LOL. OP said Me too!" and disappears.Also: Hey look, Manticore comes out of the woodwork with an "LOL. Desnetsu comes out of the woodework with a 'lol. OP said Me too!' and disappears" and disappears.
Alright, this shit needs to stop. You don't want everyone coming in and adding to that, do you?
quote:
Bloodsage needs to learn to type:
The problem with that answer, of course, is that following the guidelines is entirely optional and there is no process in place to ensure it happens or to verify they are followed prior to editing. Further, even if all of the guidelines are followed, the goal is consensus, which is not accuracy.All of these alleged processes are entirely voluntary, and rely on peer pressure for enforcement.
So, in fact, you are wrong as usual.
Sure if you're talking about Chaos theory here where there is an equal chance people follow or don't follow, and Wikipedia didn't have 500 administrators who verify that people are following the guidelines, but in real life, people generally follow the rules and try to be helpful, and wikipedia DOES have 500 administrators that enforce the guidelines.
quote:
Ruvyen had this to say about Captain Planet:
Because I had to give it to you. You've got few enough brain cells already, we can't have you losing any more.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Ruvyen:
And no one seems to care.It's probably for the best, anyway. Mental midgets such as OP get completely squashed in flame threads.
quote:
Ruvyen wrote this stupid crap:
Alright, this shit needs to stop. You don't want everyone coming in and adding to that, do you?
Ahahaha it's like he blanked out and forgot the last ~4 years of his life.
quote:
Snugglits had this to say about Robocop:
Ahahaha it's like he blanked out and forgot the last ~4 years of his life.
...But where does that last quote fit in? 
quote:
Check out the big brain on Blindy.!
Sure if you're talking about Chaos theory here where there is an equal chance people follow or don't follow, and Wikipedia didn't have 500 administrators who verify that people are following the guidelines, but in real life, people generally follow the rules and try to be helpful, and wikipedia DOES have 500 administrators that enforce the guidelines.
But on the Internet, no real rules exist. The Internet is a place where misfits and morons can find acceptance, or even fame. Is this the place you want to be looking for reliable information?
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Blindy. gently hums:
Sure if you're talking about Chaos theory here where there is an equal chance people follow or don't follow, and Wikipedia didn't have 500 administrators who verify that people are following the guidelines, but in real life, people generally follow the rules and try to be helpful, and wikipedia DOES have 500 administrators that enforce the guidelines.
And the stupid parade gets stranger. Now we have the fundamentally idiotic assertion that people will generally follow the rules and try to be helpful! I guess that's why UO was so much fun, with its reliance on player justice rather than enforcement of rules to prevent griefing, eh? I guess that's why cities don't need police forces to prevent crime. That must also be why everyone obeys the posted speed limits, too, come to think of it.
Dude, Wikipedia is nothing more than a fucking bulletin board. There are no qualifications to post, edit, or administrate. The guidelines are voluntary. Detection and correction of errors depends strictly upon the off chance someone who knows better sees the mistake and takes the time to correct it. Everything, including the policies, is decided by consensus.
How, exactly, does public consensus on a topic ensure accuracy? If, by some strange chance, the site produces an article 100% accurate, what is there to prevent someone who doesn't like it from changing it on a whim and getting into one of the pissing matches like I linked yesterday, that took months before an admin got involved?
Continuing to argue as you have really proves you don't even know how to think, Blindy. And that's just a little bit sad. If your head ever accidentally falls out of your ass, I recommend you take a class on critical thought.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage spewed forth this undeniable truth:
And the stupid parade gets stranger. Now we have the fundamentally idiotic assertion that people will generally follow the rules and try to be helpful! I guess that's why UO was so much fun, with its reliance on player justice rather than enforcement of rules to prevent griefing, eh? I guess that's why cities don't need police forces to prevent crime. That must also be why everyone obeys the posted speed limits, too, come to think of it.
Addition: That's also why no one, not even Turlis/JAPANESE SEIZURE ROBOTS or what-the-fuck-ever, or Paul554, have been banned from Evercre-- Oh, waaiit...
I think both parties are arguing different points to excess and are more carrying on for old fueds than anything else.
Wikipedia is a wonderful source of generally unbias information. So is the Urban Dictionary.
It is not, however, by any means an acceptable source usable in any real (read: academic) research. Period.
edit: added more words for clarification / not sounding like caveman CBTao fucked around with this message on 12-01-2005 at 01:52 AM.
quote:
Bloodsage stopped lurking long enough to say:
And the stupid parade gets stranger. Now we have the fundamentally idiotic assertion that people will generally follow the rules and try to be helpful! I guess that's why UO was so much fun, with its reliance on player justice rather than enforcement of rules to prevent griefing, eh? I guess that's why cities don't need police forces to prevent crime. That must also be why everyone obeys the posted speed limits, too, come to think of it.
Dude, Wikipedia is nothing more than a fucking bulletin board. There are no qualifications to post, edit, or administrate. The guidelines are voluntary. Detection and correction of errors depends strictly upon the off chance someone who knows better sees the mistake and takes the time to correct it. Everything, including the policies, is decided by consensus.
How, exactly, does public consensus on a topic ensure accuracy? If, by some strange chance, the site produces an article 100% accurate, what is there to prevent someone who doesn't like it from changing it on a whim and getting into one of the pissing matches like I linked yesterday, that took months before an admin got involved?
Continuing to argue as you have really proves you don't even know how to think, Blindy. And that's just a little bit sad. If your head ever accidentally falls out of your ass, I recommend you take a class on critical thought.
Seriously, the guidelines are what makes it possible. But I'm done arguing about this now, we aren't going to see eye to eye on it and I'm getting tired of being insulted and spoken down to.
If you spoke to people respectfully every now and then you might actually manage to convince them of something. You argue like a 2 year old.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Blindy. gently hums:
Seriously, the guidelines are what makes it possible. But I'm done arguing about this now, we aren't going to see eye to eye on it and I'm getting tired of being insulted and spoken down to.If you spoke to people respectfully every now and then you might actually manage to convince them of something. You argue like a 2 year old.
Style over substance fallacy. You're ignoring the meat of the argument and saying it can't be valid simply because you don't like the tone and the tangential insults.
You've yet to show how voluntary guidelines can ensure any reasonable standard of accuracy in an environment where anyone at all can make real-time edits at any time, and where the only method for correcting errors is the chance that someone who knows better sees it and decides to change it back.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Please keep going, it's good entertainment 
ben(at)netmastering(dot)nl
Truth can be at risk in the world of the Web
quote:
"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert
Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have
been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John,
and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."-- Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org)
This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination. It could be your story.
I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious "biography" that appeared under my name for 132 days on Wikipedia, the popular online free encyclopedia whose authors are unknown and virtually untraceable.
quote:
In a telephone conversation with Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder, I asked: "Do you, in fact, have any way to know who wrote that?""No, we don't," he said. Neither did representatives of Answers.com or Reference.com. Their computers are programmed to pick up material verbatim from Wikipedia. They don't check on whether the copied document is factual or false.
I don't think I'd be looking to Wikipedia for the truth of the matter.
Liking this thread as well...
Consensus has nothing to do with correctness. Thinking otherwise is not only stupid, but Wikipedia's fatal flaw.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Don't feed the Bloodsage:
Which proves the point that nothing in Wikipedia can be trusted, because the only way anything ends up accurate is the off chance someone with the correct information decides to correct a mistake. . .and there's still the constant danger someone will change it to be wrong again.Consensus has nothing to do with correctness. Thinking otherwise is not only stupid, but Wikipedia's fatal flaw.
Geez man do we really have to get into it again?
quote:
And so, we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research at our fingertips but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Blindy. gently hums:
Geez man do we really have to get into it again?
So. . .it's okay for you to respond with your reflexive defense of the indefensible. . .but not okay to respond?
That makes perfect sense. Not.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's momma would never want to hear them say:
So. . .it's okay for you to respond with your reflexive defense of the indefensible. . .but not okay to respond?That makes perfect sense. Not.
How is my first responce in anyway a reflexive defense?
I agree that Wikipedia failed to provide accurate information and then speculated as to a reason why. I didn't make excuses for it, nor did I attempt to brush over the fact that the information was inaccurate.
Of course you use the opertunity to knee jerk and repeat your unflinching arguement, just incase no one read you the first 5,000 times you typed it in the thread using the exact same words, but not until you take a moment to use isolated innocent to generalize the entire website as untrustworthy.
I hear Honda's cars break down every now and then too.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Blindy. was all like:
Geez man do we really have to get into it again?
If you don't want to be bitten, don't slather your testicles with barbecue sauce.
