Wikipedia - su**s

Discussion in 'Media & Commentators' started by S. Starlight, Aug 26, 2011.

  1. S. Starlight

    S. Starlight New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If this is posted in the wrong forum, then I apologise.

    Dang Wikipedia su**s :-O. Is run like a totalitarian state is, if the moderators don't see it as relevant it is deleted. The bible is seen as documented proof while eyewitness stories isn't seen as proof and therefore can't be told. A more dictatorship like place will take long to find!

    That place could have been a unique place to store and search for info about everything, but no! :hmm:
     
    kuyajack and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,717
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This seems to be rather unsupported opinion. I've certainly seen information in Wikipedia that pertained to eye-witness reports and not everything cited in the Bible is accepted as being reliable information.

    BTW roughly 40% of eye-witness testimony in court has been determined to be inaccurate and that is sworn testimony.
     
  3. Clint Torres

    Clint Torres New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting how the Wikipedia chooses to post the things they feel are significant, but they also omit critical factual/historical information on some topics and people. Specifically politicians and thier history prior to their elected office. They omit the politicians' associates and previous employment history although it is known fact and documents do exist. But like any broadcast media that is controled by money, there will be filters/editors who must abide by their constituents request. Some call it bribe others call it their legal right.
     
  4. MissJonelyn

    MissJonelyn New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    6,144
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wikipedia says themselves that you cannot trust anything that is posted on wikipedia.
     
  5. devilsadvocate

    devilsadvocate New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's peer reviewed. It is the closest you are going to get. Wikipedia is more of a reference source, than an end all anyway. Only extremely lazy and/or ignorant people would use wikipedia for legitimate research data. Its fine for little debates here and there, or for some reference to defend a side, but its not the basis of your data, or shouldn't be.

    The bible is documented proof of what? Even the Israelis are having trouble finding archaeological links. The more data that comes in the more and more it seems like the bible is mythology. It sure doesn't add up with the historical record. It is a great literary work, but I am not sure what proof it documents.

    as far as the dictatorship goes, well it is a private web site, and they can do what they want with it.
     
  6. Anansi the Spider

    Anansi the Spider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,916
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yes.

    How the global warming cult took control of Wikipedia

    Many similar examples. I hate to see truth defined by anonymous activists and corporate bureaucrats.
     
  7. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,352
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was under the impression that Wikipedia has a quite clear and well defined set of rules on what should be included in an entry. For example, they require independent sources for information and don't accept personal opinion (which would include undocumented eyewitness statements). In principal, these seem like reasonable rules to try to implement, though obviously not without difficulties and dispute. They do have extensive structures in place to manage such disputes though.

    I've not checked but I suspect the Bible is only considered evidence of what is written in the Bible.
     
  8. Flag

    Flag New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That reminds me of conservapedia articles saying wiki is biased because it doesnt link atheism and obesity and doesnt say evoluiton is form the devil.

    Total lulz
     
  9. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    444
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've only seen a few examples of this in wikipedia.

    One glaring example of historical fact replaced with propaganda was in regards to the civil war battle at the crater.

    In "Lee's Miserables:Letters Home from the Army of Northern Virginia", which is a compendium of letters from the front written home by southern soldiers.. the subject of the Crater takes a central role.

    According to the letters UNANIMOUSLY every southern soldier who fought in the battle and wrote home about it said the same thing..

    That the Colored troops were unleashed into the breach and came across screaming at the top of their lungs "NO QUARTER! NO QUARTER FOR THE OPPRESSORS!"

    In 19th century combat, when you called "No Quarter" that means, "Take no prisoners, kill everyone in sight"..

    So as a result, when the colored troops trapped in the bottom of the hole, when the battle went against them, threw down their arms and threw up their hands the Southern troops were perfectly justified in shooting them down because at that time, under the legal laws of warfare, the colored troops had shouted "no quarter".

    Why is there no documentation to the fact on wikipedia? Instead the entry goes on to claim that confederate soldiers mercilessly gunned down unarmed coloreds in violation of the laws of war.

    But there was no violation to the laws of war, and it can be attested to in documentation of literally dozens and dozens of letters home from the front that unanimously claimed that "No Quarter" was called by the colored troops at the crater. When you call "No Quarter", you HAVE to fight to the death, you cannot "take it back" once called.
     
  10. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,352
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because nobody has added it. I don't believe there is anything stopping you gathering the sources and updating the entry. Alternatively, you could add this information in the page's discussion section for someone else to source and update.

    Incomplete or inaccurate information is an inevitable consequence of how Wikipedia works and it relies on people identifying and correcting them. None of that equates to what the OP is alleging.
     
  11. Anansi the Spider

    Anansi the Spider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,916
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
  12. Anansi the Spider

    Anansi the Spider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,916
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Okay you disagree with their point-of-view, I do too sometimes, but I'm glad they exist. I don't just casually dismiss them with easy ridicule. It's good to see those with a variety of perspectives presenting their opinions. I like to see libertarians, Muslims, Christian socialists, establishment liberals, right-wing nationalists, Buddhists all contending one against the other.
     
  13. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,352
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    Trophy Points:
    113
    With some good reason as highlighted in the discussion about it. The issue doesn't appear to be the existence of the criticism on Wikipedia (much of which apparently exists on other pages) but the format of a page specifically for it.

    Some people abuse the way Wikipedia works - sad but inevitable. Part of the reason for the strict policies the OP seems to be objecting to is an effort to combat such malicious or biased edits.

    I'm not sure what your point is beyond the world not being perfect.
     
  14. Anansi the Spider

    Anansi the Spider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,916
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Why delete this page? It contains material not found on the NYT main page. Why the cover-up? Seeing all this information together might lead someone to question the NYT's devotion to truth. Is this what the the lords of Wikipedia want to prevent?

    Here's the page: New York Times controversies

    You seem complacent about these distortions.

    No evidence the Wikipedia leadership makes any effort to prevent dishonest edits.
     
  15. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,352
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're just making stuff up now. Where is the cover-up? Where are these fantasy "Lords of Wikipedia"? Your initial link showed the discussion of the reasons for deleting the article. I don't think there is anything stopping someone from taking the same basic information ad structuring it in a way the meets the rules of Wikipedia articles (as suggested in the discussion).

    I don't make a habit of getting too worked up about the imperfections of life I can't do anything about. The entire internet suffers the same issue to a greater or lesser extent. It's an inevitable consequence of free transfer of information but one outweighed by the benefits.
     
  16. Anansi the Spider

    Anansi the Spider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,916
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    More cover-ups for you to remain indifferent to Honest Joe. If you care so little about the truth you might want to change your screen name.

    Exxon Mobil and the giant oil slick
    An IP address that belongs to ExxonMobil, the oil giant, is linked to sweeping changes to an entry on the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989. An allegation that the company "has not yet paid the $5 billion in spill damages it owes to the 32,000 Alaskan fishermen" was replaced with references to the funds the company has paid out.

    The Israeli government and the West Bank wall
    A computer linked to the Israeli government twice tried to delete an entire article about the West Bank wall that was critical of the policy. An edit from the same address also modified the entry for Hizbollah describing all its operations as being "mostly military in nature".

    The dog breeders and fatal maulings
    A dog breeders association in America removed references to two fatal maulings of humans by the Perro de Presa Canario dogs in the US. In 2001 a woman was attacked and killed by two Presa Canario/Mastiff hybrids in the hallway of her apartment building in San Fransisco. Last year a pure-bred Presa Canario fatally mauled a woman in Florida.

    The gun lobby and fatal shootings
    The National Rifle Association of America doctored concerns about its role in the increase in gun fatalities by replacing the passage with a reference to the association's conservation work in America.

    Discovery Channel and guerrilla marketing
    A source traced to Discovery Communications, the company that owns the Discovery Channel, deleted reference to company's reputation for " guerrilla marketing".

    MySpace and self-censorship
    Someone working from an IP address linked to MySpace appears to have been so irritated by references to the social networking website's over-censorial policy that they removed a paragraph accusing MySpace of censorship.

    Dell computer out-sourcing
    Dell removed a passage about how the company out-sourced its support divisions overseas.

    Nestle and corporate criticism
    Someone from Nestle removed criticisms of some of the company's controversial business practices, which have all subsequently been re-added.

    The FBI and Guantánamo
    The FBI has removed aerial images of the Guantánamo Bay Naval base in Cuba.

    Scientologists and sensitivity
    Computers with IP addresses traced to the Church of Scientology were used to expunge critical paragraphs about the cult's world-wide operations.

    News International and the hypocritical anti-paedophile campaign
    Someone at News International saw fit to remove criticism of the News of the World's anti-paedophile campaign by deleting the suggestion that this amounted to editorial hypocrisy. The original entry reminded readers that the paper continued to "publish semi-nude photographs of page three models as young as 16 and salacious stories about female celebrities younger than that."

    LINK
     
  17. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,352
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm aware all that is perfectly possible and while Wikipedia has systems and structures in place to reduce and handle them, it would be impossible to eradicate the issue entirely without fundamentally destroying the principal of the site.

    I really don't see what you're actually looking for here though. You're highlighting issues but not making any kind of suggestion as to how they should be dealt with. You want me to get worked up about this but you're giving me no direction. A thread full of people going "Grr, Wikipedia bad!" doesn't strike me as in any way useful.
     
  18. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,573
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I find it rather useful for some topics. For anything controversial I don't use Wikipedia. And, eyewitness testimony from non-participants is certainly not particularly trustworthy.
     
  19. S. Starlight

    S. Starlight New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Agree that those non-participants reports can't be very trustworthy most of the times, and yet most of wiki articles are build on such reports, while first-hand eyewitness testimony is deleted :-/.

    I added info from the missions areas I've been in which you can't find in any book. It got deleted. I then asked, if it had been written in a book, would I then be able to post it without getting it deleted? Yes! Dang, isn't that the same as writing it in Wiki?

    Well it did get me started to write a book, only it will of course take time before I'm finished.
     
  20. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,352
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not quite the same. A book takes time and effort to write. It will (generally) go through an editorial process, can be reviewed and challenged. It's in the public domain under the authors name. That's quite different from a 30 second entry from some anonymous IP address.

    If Wikipedia allowed unsupported eye-witness information in their entries, it would just introduce a whole new set of accuracy and balance issues.
     
  21. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,573
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Most of the Wikipedia articles I read have nothing to do with eyewitnesses. I often use it to check historical facts.
     

Share This Page