Posted Tuesday 26th May 2009 18:04 GMT
"a Wikiobsessed shadow site"
That's El Reg, surely?
In any case, I'm all for the exposure of the Wikicult craziness... you should create a subsection for this kind os stories, just like the Playmobile Perversions, or the Street View mashup...
And, can we get an evil Wikipedia / Wikideathstar icon?
Posted Tuesday 26th May 2009 18:35 GMT
Perhaps El Reg needs a black pot-and-kettle icon?
Posted Tuesday 26th May 2009 19:32 GMT
Still, it can be good for a laugh.
Posted Tuesday 26th May 2009 20:27 GMT
Wikipedia is actually fairly good on some topics, it has some well-written explanations. Just make sure you double-check the facts elsewhere before relying on it, and avoid contentious issues where vested interests will introduce bias (think evolution...)
Posted Tuesday 26th May 2009 22:09 GMT
For Maths and Physics pretty much up to Undergraduate level, it's very handy indeed, cause it has all the equations linked to each other and some good explanations of the concepts. It also gives you the terminology for things so actually know what to search for.
A purely technical-oriented wiki could do quite well I think.
Posted Tuesday 26th May 2009 23:23 GMT
Editing from multiple accounts isn't really verboten - they can't really prevent it, so they don't really try. All they can do is take ineffective punitive measures against those who are "caught" doing it "abusively," though of course, to avoid getting caught it's best not to seek election to the Arbitration Committee in the first place.
After the Essjay scandal of two years ago, Jimmy Wales put up a lot of talk about "credentials verification," which turned out to be vaporware, as usual. The media fell for it, though, hook line and sinker - giving Wikipedia all the benefits of media coverage without the inconvenience of their actually having to fix anything. (The media didn't follow up on it, either.)
I just hope that whatever happens in the wake of this little kerfuffle, reporters won't just accept whatever nonsense they're told about how Wikipedia "intends" to deal with such abuses. I can assure any journalists and bloggers reading this that they intend to do nothing whatsoever, for as long as they can possibly get away with it.
Posted Tuesday 26th May 2009 23:30 GMT
You mean there's something OTHER than porn in the top ten?!
When did this happen?
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Posted Wednesday 27th May 2009 10:57 GMT
"According to Boothroyd's Wikipedia biography - which has been purged from the site"
Why purged, why not just updated / corrected / whatever ?
Will Wikibigbrothers embark on a course to remove all evidence of his existence everywhere ?
Posted Wednesday 27th May 2009 11:02 GMT
In other news:
Sky Up!
Water Wet!
Fire Hot!
etc.
Posted Wednesday 27th May 2009 12:17 GMT
"On May 15, Boothroyd changed the photo on the David Cameron entry, preferring one "not carrying saintly overtones."
Erm, I think you forgot to mention that the edit to David Cameron's photo was to revert vandalism.
PS: It will make an excellent story if El Reg's own socket puppetry accounts are revealed...
Posted Wednesday 27th May 2009 21:26 GMT
A minor British pol resigns from Wikipedia's arbitration committee. Stop the presses. What are the origins of this single-minded hatred?
Posted Thursday 28th May 2009 20:42 GMT
While the Wikipedia drones have swarmed in to "protect their own" and have deleted David Boothroyd's encyclopedia article, they seem to forget that it was released to the public under the terms of the GFDL open license. Therefore, the article is bound to show up somewhere else on the Internet.
Indeed, it already has:
http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:David_Boothroyd
Back to the article
