DW> >Wikipedia should only be for entertainment. not to prove a point or be u
DW> in
DW> >an official compacity.
DW>
DW> >Real research is libraries is where you find much reliable information.
DW>
DW> Indeed. People seem to forget about those.

They have done countless studies on this, when compared to encyclopedias and
written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time. Because it's
on paper or in a Library people assume the information or the people who
wrote it are some how less flawed.

For every person looking to 'erase' history on wikipedia I would imagine
there are 10 who proudly hang a confederate flag in their front yard watching
those pages like a hawk ready to undo any tampering.

Fun experiment, go and try to edit any page of even moderate importance with
something subtle that changes the narrative and see how long it stays up for.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A45 2020/02/18 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The Bottomless Abyss BBS * bbs.bottomlessabyss.net

Re: Re: going to war
By: unc0nnected to Dumas Walker on Sun Dec 03 2023 09:58 pm

> DW> Indeed. People seem to forget about those.
>
> They have done countless studies on this, when compared to encyclopedias
>
> and
> written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time. Because

who has?

> written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time. Because
> it's on paper or in a Library people assume the information or the people
> who
> wrote it are some how less flawed.

yeah because written material is less flawed. it's vetted and curated by professionals.

not retards.

> For every person looking to 'erase' history on wikipedia I would imagine
> there are 10 who proudly hang a confederate flag in their front yard
> watching those pages like a hawk ready to undo any tampering.

those people are easy to deal with if you're smart enough. the easiest way is to become one of them. befriend them and then they will defend you and whatever you do.

> Fun experiment, go and try to edit any page of even moderate importance with
> something subtle that changes the narrative and see how long it stays up
> for.

already done it before.
wikipedia is not a notable source of information. it's sad that people believe it is.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: going to war
By: unc0nnected to Dumas Walker on Sun Dec 03 2023 09:58 pm

DW>>> Real research is libraries is where you find much reliable information.

DW>> Indeed. People seem to forget about those.

un> They have done countless studies on this, when compared to encyclopedias
un> and written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time.
un> Because it's on paper or in a Library people assume the information or the
un> people who wrote it are some how less flawed.

I've wondered about this too. Wikipedia might not be perfect, but it can be corrected in real-time.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Re: going to war
By: Nightfox to unc0nnected on Mon Dec 04 2023 09:26 am

Yeah the articles on wikipedia regarding modern conflicts such as the
Israeli-hamas conflict are fairly comprehensive, and have a large body of
people actively working to update the article at all time of the day.
---
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Re: going to war
By: unc0nnected to Dumas Walker on Sun Dec 03 2023 09:58 pm

> They have done countless studies on this, when compared to encyclopedias and > written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time. Because it' > on paper or in a Library people assume the information or the people who
> wrote it are some how less flawed.
>

Wikipedia is not a primary source of information, but it on encyclopedias and
written references. At least the official stance is you cannot post anything
unless it comes from what they deem a reputable source.

I don't count myself as a Wikipedia supporter because what they deem a valid
source is a voluble thing. If they dislike your softare project, the software'sdocumentation is not a valid source of information to use as a reference for
the project's goals or hardware requirinments (!).

But it gets better. If they dislike the project enough then they won't accept
an article in Linux Magazine Pro from a third party author.

Wikipedia is nice for finding general information about a subject (such as
"What is X?") and finding listings (such as the titles of the songs on some
albums). It is also nice for gathering some trivia. It should, however, not be
taken as something different from an encyclopedia put together by diferent
people who have their own phobias.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: going to war
By: Nightfox to unc0nnected on Mon Dec 04 2023 09:26 am

> un> encyclopedias and written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of
> un> the time. Because it's on paper or in a Library people assume the
> un> information or the people who wrote it are some how less flawed.
>
> I've wondered about this too. Wikipedia might not be perfect, but it can be
> corrected in real-time.
>

'correction' is in the eye of the person who edits it. that's what the problem is. at best, wikipedia is accurate due to it's plagorism of more reliable sources.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: going to war
By: Kingoffrogs to Nightfox on Mon Dec 04 2023 12:20 pm

> Re: Re: going to war
> By: Nightfox to unc0nnected on Mon Dec 04 2023 09:26 am
>
> Yeah the articles on wikipedia regarding modern conflicts such as the
> Israeli-hamas conflict are fairly comprehensive, and have a large body of
> people actively working to update the article at all time of the day.

that's why i call it a mmorpg.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: going to war
By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Dec 05 2023 08:37 am

MR> problem is. at best, wikipedia is accurate due to it's plagorism of more
MR> reliable sources.

Plagarism? I remember Wikipedia saying it's against the rule to post original information on Wikipedia, and anything you put there must have a citation of another resource. Basically, Wikipedia's rules are that it's to be used as a reference based on other sources. I guess you could call that "plagarism" but I don't know if that's an accurate term.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

> un> They have done countless studies on this, when compared to encyclopedias
> un> and written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time.
> un> Because it's on paper or in a Library people assume the information or th
> un> people who wrote it are some how less flawed.

>I've wondered about this too. Wikipedia might not be perfect, but it can be co
>rected in real-time.

It can also be screwed up in real time.

I cannot speak for most of them, but back in the 1980's you could by a
"year book" from World Book that included updates to any articles that
already existed as well as new articles for new events, in order to keep
your set updated.

* SLMR 2.1a * Adolescence - the time between puberty and adultery.

---
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

> Wikipedia is nice for finding general information about a subject (such as
> "What is X?") and finding listings (such as the titles of the songs on some
> albums). It is also nice for gathering some trivia.

Pretty much what I use it for. +1.

* SLMR 2.1a * Objects in taglines are closer than they appear.

---
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: going to war
By: Nightfox to MRO on Tue Dec 05 2023 09:04 am

> Re: Re: going to war
> By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Dec 05 2023 08:37 am
>
> MR> problem is. at best, wikipedia is accurate due to it's plagorism of
> MR> more reliable sources.
>
> Plagarism? I remember Wikipedia saying it's against the rule to post
> original information on Wikipedia, and anything you put there must have a

man are you gullable.

> citation of another resource. Basically, Wikipedia's rules are that it's to
> be used as a reference based on other sources. I guess you could call that
> "plagarism" but I don't know if that's an accurate term.

their content is stolen from other sources. that's basically how it all started and keeps going except for minor edits.

furthermore you can post info without references. someone puts a 'citation needed' tag but you can delete that at at time when the person does not notice or care to police it.

damn, you people really believe in wikipedia, don't you. that's sad.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: going to war
By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Dec 05 2023 10:45 pm

> MR>> problem is. at best, wikipedia is accurate due to it's plagorism of
> MR>> more reliable sources.

>> Plagarism? I remember Wikipedia saying it's against the rule to post
>> original information on Wikipedia, and anything you put there must have a

MR> man are you gullable.

I was just stating a rule they have. How is that being gullable? It doesn't necessarily mean everyone follows the rule.

MR> furthermore you can post info without references. someone puts a
MR> 'citation needed' tag but you can delete that at at time when the person
MR> does not notice or care to police it.

Yeah, I've seen wrong information on Wikipedia, and articles saying 'citation needed', and I tend to be skeptical of those articles.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com