Moderator: Community Team
jakewilliams wrote:Here's some fodder for General Discussion.
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6930546.ece
Wikipedia has seen a large number of editors (contributors) leave in the past year. Is this something that is to be expected from a site with community moderators, such as CC? I'm not saying that CC is dying but plenty of posters think that the forums are dying and becoming more bland/stale.
Discuss.
Jake
Woodruff wrote:jakewilliams wrote:Here's some fodder for General Discussion.
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6930546.ece
Wikipedia has seen a large number of editors (contributors) leave in the past year. Is this something that is to be expected from a site with community moderators, such as CC? I'm not saying that CC is dying but plenty of posters think that the forums are dying and becoming more bland/stale.
Discuss.
Jake
I think the people that think that don't understand what they're really thinking.
Wikipedia sucks, however.

Woodruff wrote:Wikipedia sucks, however.
demonfork wrote:Woodruff wrote:jakewilliams wrote:Here's some fodder for General Discussion.
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6930546.ece
Wikipedia has seen a large number of editors (contributors) leave in the past year. Is this something that is to be expected from a site with community moderators, such as CC? I'm not saying that CC is dying but plenty of posters think that the forums are dying and becoming more bland/stale.
Discuss.
Jake
I think the people that think that don't understand what they're really thinking.
Wikipedia sucks, however.
Typical answer from a teacher, teachers are generally Wikipedia haters. Probably because they don't know how to relate to systems that aren't bogged down by bureaucracy.
Wikipedia is awesome, however.
Foxglove wrote:Woodruff wrote:Wikipedia sucks, however.
![]()
It might have flaws, but it is an easily accessible, adequately accurate, super amazing source of info.
I look things up on wikipedia practically every day.
Woodruff wrote:demonfork wrote:Woodruff wrote:jakewilliams wrote:Here's some fodder for General Discussion.
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6930546.ece
Wikipedia has seen a large number of editors (contributors) leave in the past year. Is this something that is to be expected from a site with community moderators, such as CC? I'm not saying that CC is dying but plenty of posters think that the forums are dying and becoming more bland/stale.
Discuss.
Jake
I think the people that think that don't understand what they're really thinking.
Wikipedia sucks, however.
Typical answer from a teacher, teachers are generally Wikipedia haters. Probably because they don't know how to relate to systems that aren't bogged down by bureaucracy.
Wikipedia is awesome, however.
Teachers are generally Wikipedia haters because they recognize it for what it is - unsubstantiated. Has nothing at all to do with bureaucracy and has everything to do with accuracy.Foxglove wrote:Woodruff wrote:Wikipedia sucks, however.
![]()
It might have flaws, but it is an easily accessible, adequately accurate, super amazing source of info.
I look things up on wikipedia practically every day.
Which is great, if you're not concerned with the information being particularly accurate. In my view, that's a very serious flaw.

demonfork wrote:
God, it's amazing to me that we are even able to make any kind of progress at all when we are plagued with so many one dimensional thinkers that aren't able to cope with change.
Technology is increasing geometrically. By the time "accurate" information is published in text books, packaged and shipped off to Mr college professor to use as his next semesters curriculum, that information, a lot of times, is already obsolete.
Real time information is the future, if you cant realize that and start embracing it then you will be left in the dust.
demonfork wrote:Woodruff wrote:Which is great, if you're not concerned with the information being particularly accurate. In my view, that's a very serious flaw.
God, it's amazing to me that we are even able to make any kind of progress at all when we are plagued with so many one dimensional thinkers that aren't able to cope with change.
Technology is increasing geometrically. By the time "accurate" information is published in text books, packaged and shipped off to Mr college professor to use as his next semesters curriculum, that information, a lot of times, is already obsolete.
Real time information is the future, if you cant realize that and start embracing it then you will be left in the dust.
Woodruff wrote:demonfork wrote:Woodruff wrote:Which is great, if you're not concerned with the information being particularly accurate. In my view, that's a very serious flaw.
God, it's amazing to me that we are even able to make any kind of progress at all when we are plagued with so many one dimensional thinkers that aren't able to cope with change.
Technology is increasing geometrically. By the time "accurate" information is published in text books, packaged and shipped off to Mr college professor to use as his next semesters curriculum, that information, a lot of times, is already obsolete.
Real time information is the future, if you cant realize that and start embracing it then you will be left in the dust.
So what you're telling me is that people should embrace Wikipedia even though it's not verified accurate information EVEN WHEN THERE IS VERIFIED ACCURATE INFORMATION READILY AVAILABLE ONLINE? Really? There is BOATLOADS of legitimate research information available on the web on pretty much any subject.
MartijnF wrote:Wikipedia articles are always accurate, because when you encounter something which is not correct, you can fix it.
The average Wikipedia article has been reviewed by more people than most other sources of information and is therefore more reliable.
Don't forget to include the disucssions and revision pages when reading an article though.

Snorri1234 wrote:Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MartijnF wrote:Wikipedia articles are always accurate, because when you encounter something which is not correct, you can fix it.
Snorri1234 wrote:Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?
Woodruff wrote:MartijnF wrote:Wikipedia articles are always accurate, because when you encounter something which is not correct, you can fix it.
This sort of logic frightens and confuses me. Mostly frightens me though, because it just highlights the problem without recognizing it.Snorri1234 wrote:Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?
And that's fine, but if you're going to bother with that...why not just use the references themselves? Why bother with Wikipedia?

MartijnF wrote:Wikipedia articles are always accurate, because when you encounter something which is not correct, you can fix it.
Woodruff wrote:MartijnF wrote:Wikipedia articles are always accurate, because when you encounter something which is not correct, you can fix it.
This sort of logic frightens and confuses me. Mostly frightens me though, because it just highlights the problem without recognizing it.Snorri1234 wrote:Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?
And that's fine, but if you're going to bother with that...why not just use the references themselves? Why bother with Wikipedia?
Woodruff wrote:This sort of logic frightens and confuses me. Mostly frightens me though, because it just highlights the problem without recognizing it.
Woodruff wrote:Snorri1234 wrote:Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?
And that's fine, but if you're going to bother with that...why not just use the references themselves? Why bother with Wikipedia?
Snorri1234 wrote:Woodruff wrote:Snorri1234 wrote:Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?
And that's fine, but if you're going to bother with that...why not just use the references themselves? Why bother with Wikipedia?
Because all those references are conveniently located next to eachother in wiki. It's much harder to find with google. Wikipedia is supposed to be a starting-point, it will give you just enough info to see what it's all about and leave you with good references to look into for more detail.
If I know little about a topic which is not surrounded by controversy wikipedia is the best place to look.
demonfork wrote:Woodruff wrote:MartijnF wrote:Wikipedia articles are always accurate, because when you encounter something which is not correct, you can fix it.
This sort of logic frightens and confuses me. Mostly frightens me though, because it just highlights the problem without recognizing it.Snorri1234 wrote:Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?
And that's fine, but if you're going to bother with that...why not just use the references themselves? Why bother with Wikipedia?
It actually scares that shit out of me that you are a teacher.
Snorri1234 wrote:Woodruff wrote:Snorri1234 wrote:Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?
And that's fine, but if you're going to bother with that...why not just use the references themselves? Why bother with Wikipedia?
Because all those references are conveniently located next to eachother in wiki. It's much harder to find with google. Wikipedia is supposed to be a starting-point, it will give you just enough info to see what it's all about and leave you with good references to look into for more detail.
If I know little about a topic which is not surrounded by controversy wikipedia is the best place to look.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.