why wikiality? why not encality?

sorry, i guess i just dont understand his logic.

lol

Stephen Colbert is so funny, I wish I had seen that episode.

lol, anyone can make up anything and put it on wikipedia.

I deleted a whole article on farenheit 451 after i did an english essay on it to be safe.

Wikipedia has really strict moderation and a restore tool

from the website:



they may have moderators, but they can't verify thousands of changes every hour, millions of pieces of data about every single topic imaginable. it's only slightly more trustworthy than information you can find on any public forum, like ckd forums for example.

not saying it's not a good source of info, but I'm skeptical about everything on wikipedia.

They've got thousands of moderators and a report button. A few moderators are SA members (more thana few actually) and they say that they have a constant string of reports to revise every day. I trust it

and these mods are experts...on everything? i'm betting a lot of data slips through the cracks.

exactly, i mean something like the population of elephants is tripling is quite obviously made up and easily checkable but if you look at something that goes into quite a lot of detail, such as the processes going on inside a white dwarf star or something then theres no way you can trust it without looking at other sources

BUT

you should do that anyway, never rely on one source for information.

_________________

no people report the errors and the mods fix it and take action based on who made the faulty edits

yea but you still have to trust the people reporting the errors just as much as those who originally posted something wrong. I could go onto that page about elephants and make a correction that the population is quadrupling not tripling, someone still should verify my claim.

edit: i guess the point im trying to make is that somewhere down the line, every scrap of information there has to be verified by an outside source, wether its been edited sixteen times or whatever doesnt really matter

_________________

Well wikipedia works. I don't know how it works, since the internet is basically 95% made up of absolute retards who think that getting around a school proxy and putting porno desktops (trace) is a good use of net time. Somehow wikipedia remains reliable.

I for one know that they let things slip through the cracks because I'm on the list of famous people for my state due to my abilities in whistling and climbing (complete bs.) Also I have an entire entry written about me (which I didn't do) which reads like something created by a bored, mischevious college student. These things have been up for over a month now unedited.

_________________
OMG!

Oh yes Ponuh, I do agree that it works and is a good site, but that you have to be careful how much stock you put on what is said there.

Back in college for essays i'd often use wikipedia to read through and formulte an understanding of xyz topic in my head, before getting bogged down in the details of it elsewhere, something like schrodingers equation was basically a nice summary of three hours of lectures I'd just had.

edit: spelt your name wrong and looked again just now, the entry for the schrodinger equation has changed quite a lot since I last looked at it lol, hardly understand that shit now.

_________________

Maybe someone has the same name as you? haha.

Na, it was created by a friend.

_________________
OMG!