MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Faces of (wikipedia) FREETARDS !  (Read 11920 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

antistock

« on: July 15, 2012, 01:29 »
0
BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!

if you ever wondered how the top freetards looked like here it is ... from BBC.

Wikipedia: Meet the men and women who write the articles
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18833763

two of the guys in the articled edited a whopping 1 MILLION articles without making a dime and without getting any credit for it ... and then we complain about having to keyword our images to make money !

now look at them ...






« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2012, 01:48 »
0
Good for them - my hat's off to them for their efforts.

« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2012, 02:04 »
0
And your point is ....?

Poncke

« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2012, 02:28 »
0
What is the point you are trying to make? Rubbish thread

rubyroo

« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2012, 04:30 »
0
What have these (probably very nice, intelligent) people actually done to you directly?  A completely unwarranted attack, as far as I can see.

Microbius

« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2012, 04:56 »
0
I don't get it either, not everyone who works on WP articles is into stealing other people's copyrighted work. These could just be some very nice people helping to spread knowledge. Scatter gunning anyone who gives their time for free is no way to combat actual IP thieves. 

ShadySue

« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2012, 06:08 »
0
Why not gun for the people who lift their descriptions for stock photos directly, with no editing, from Wikipedia, which is against their T&C?
Hats off to the Wikipedia people.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 07:25 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2012, 07:08 »
0
Twice I've been contacted by Wikipedia to ask if they could include info from my totally personal, not even one ad on it, website, even though I say at the bottom that info may be used for personal or educational purposes.

rubyroo

« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2012, 07:19 »
0
That's great Sue.  Personally I think Wikipedia (where the info is accurate) is one of the best things the Internet has to offer.

The original article referenced by the OP ends with this comment:

"Many people have no access to healthcare information. Wikipedia is the only viable model at this point to address that.

"We're in 284 languages. The World Health Organization is in 70."

Complete article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18833763

grafix04

« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2012, 07:43 »
0
That's great Sue.  Personally I think Wikipedia (where the info is accurate) is one of the best things the Internet has to offer.


This is the problem.  A lot of it is not accurate and unfortunately a lot of people treat anything written in Wiki as Gospel.  Spreading knowledge is a good thing but spreading fallacies does more harm than good. 



Nothing against the effort he's put in and the amount of hours he's donated but this guy who has edited 1.1 million wiki articles delivers pizza for a living.  That implies that he's not knowledgeable enough to be educating others.  Makes me wonder how many inaccurate articles that I've read were written by him.

Poncke

« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2012, 07:48 »
0


Nothing against the effort he's put in and the amount of hours he's donated but this guy who has edited 1.1 million wiki articles delivers pizza for a living.  That implies that he's not knowledgeable enough to be educating others.  Makes me wonder how many inaccurate articles that I've read were written by him.

Utter fallacy.

rubyroo

« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2012, 07:49 »
0
I don't think a person's occupation is necessarily any measure of their intelligence.  Sometimes people choose occupations on the basis of time flexibility and minimal stress in order to spend more time living their life as they want to.  But hey, none of us even know this man and judging anyone on their appearance or their occupation is a very narrow thought process.

ETA:

I just searched on that guy's name and found this article about him:

Extract:  "Knapp has degrees in philosophy and political science."

Full article here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2132526/First-man-hits-MILLION-Wikipedia-edits.html
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 07:54 by rubyroo »

ShadySue

« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2012, 07:58 »
0
Nothing against the effort he's put in and the amount of hours he's donated but this guy who has edited 1.1 million wiki articles delivers pizza for a living.  That implies that he's not knowledgeable enough to be educating others.  
What utter rubbish. I knew a guy who had double first honours degrees and chose to drive public buses for a living.
And another with an art degree who taught for five or six years, rising incredibly rapidly up the promotion ladder, gave it up, and worked for the rest of his working life as a porter in a hotel so that he could spend his non-working hours doing things he loved, including being able to spend serious quality time with his family and friends. He also became a phenomenal Renaissance Man, by having the time to follow his interests.
I just rewatched Good Will Hunting last night: the Sean Maguire character is a fictional example of someone who chose to give up the rat race for personal happiness and to help others.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 08:44 by ShadySue »

grafix04

« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2012, 08:02 »
0
The point is that a lot of information on wiki is wrong and look at the people who are updating them?  They are not experts in any fields, they are ordinary people who donate their time to write these articles.  There is no control over the crap that's written there.  Unfortunately, over time, the BS written in there will become known as truth.

Who knows, maybe that pizza guy is an ex professor but judging from the misinformation spread on wiki, I'm leaning towards thinking he's just some uneducated bum delivering pizzas and edits these incorrect articles for free to give some meaning to his uneventful life.  

I maybe making an assumption but no more than the assumption he and the other editors make when publishing these articles with false information.  

grafix04

« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2012, 08:04 »
0
Nothing against the effort he's put in and the amount of hours he's donated but this guy who has edited 1.1 million wiki articles delivers pizza for a living.  That implies that he's not knowledgeable enough to be educating others. 
What utter rubbish. I knew a guy who had double first honours degrees and chose to drive public buses for a living.
And another with an art degree who taught for five or six years, rising incredibly rapidly up the promotion ladder, gave it up, and worked for the rest of his working life as a porter in a hotel so that he could spend his non-working hours doing things he loved.
I just rewatched Good Will Hunting last night: the Sean Maguire character is a fictional example of someone who chose to give up the rat race for personal happiness and to help others.

You people are missing the point that wiki has a lot of inaccurate information and that is why I'm led to believe that this pizza guy probably doesn't have a double first honors degree.  Maybe if I didn't find so much garbage on wiki, I would think otherwise.

ShadySue

« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2012, 08:06 »
0
This is the problem.  A lot of it is not accurate and unfortunately a lot of people treat anything written in Wiki as Gospel.  Spreading knowledge is a good thing but spreading fallacies does more harm than good.  
Just like people spamming or not researching their keywords enough before putting them in as stock.
But also, it seems that some wiki topics are maliciously targetted specifically to fool readers or draw wikipedia into disrepute.
If my Wikipedia use is critical, I always cross check (and taught my pupils to do the same), and I've usually found, when I've researched a topic extensively, that the wikipedia account is more accurate and certainly more balanced than most others, even sources that might be regarded as 'more authoritative'.
With any controversial topic, you're going to have a constant back and forward as proponents of each side try to sway the balance, which is the downside. But with conventional sites, you often only get one side of the debate, presented as truth.
Just like some posts here.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 08:41 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2012, 08:07 »
0
The point is that a lot of information on wiki is wrong and look at the people who are updating them?  They are not experts in any fields, they are ordinary people who donate their time to write these articles.  There is no control over the crap that's written there.
There's very little control over any information that goes up on the internet.
Look here's one: "The moon is made of blue, not green, cheese". Who's to stop me writing that?

« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2012, 08:36 »
0
It's not that often I have a good enough excuse to hit the ignore button.

« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2012, 08:38 »
0
I don't think a person's occupation is necessarily any measure of their intelligence.  


Well said, just look at GWB as an example.

« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2012, 08:47 »
0
Well done those guys on Wikipedia! I use it all the time and it's an excellent resource. What the heck does how someone earns a living has to do with their intelligence or knowledge?

As for inaccuracies, yeah sure there are. Anyone using ANY information for critical stuff needs to check more than one source.

grafix04

« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2012, 08:47 »
0
The point is that a lot of information on wiki is wrong and look at the people who are updating them?  They are not experts in any fields, they are ordinary people who donate their time to write these articles.  There is no control over the crap that's written there.
There's very little control over any information that goes up on the internet.
Look here's one: "The moon is made of blue, not green, cheese". Who's to stop me writing that?

But that's just it yet so many people have this idea that wikipedia is accurate.  I'm not really judging this person because of his appearance or his job, I'm judging him and the rest because of the amount of inaccurate information I've come across there.  Only because of this, I'm assuming he might be a dimwit.  It would be great if we had experts in certain fields editing these wiki articles and it would be good if we could see their credentials.  But the fact is, experts wouldn't be doing something like that for free and the people here that are editing these articles are probably doing their research on the net where there's so much inaccurate information.  But once it's on wiki, it gets referenced often and the fallacy eventually becomes known as the truth.  That doesn't spread knowledge, that spreads fallacies and changes history over time.

fujiko

« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2012, 08:59 »
0

ShadySue

« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2012, 09:00 »
0
But the fact is, experts wouldn't be doing something like that for free
This is not a fact. Some experts do contribute to Wikipedia for free. I have no idea how many, but there are some. Why wouldn't they?
Without claiming to be an 'expert', I've added new, accurate information to update a (very few) wikipedia articles.

See - you complain about wikipedia being inaccurate, but like at least one other msg member, you claim things to be 'facts' which demonstrably are not so.
If people don't realise that anyone can contribute a wikipedia article, or go in and change one, they need to be educated.
Many so-called authoritative sources of information, whether book, video, online or any other media are biased. In Scottish schools, that's a key factor in formal education - pupils are educated to look for bias and to compare sources. If it is not so elsewhere, it should be -  any 'education' system which does not develop critical learners does not educate.
Lesson One: be very wary of 'sweeping statements" like "experts wouldn't be doing something like that for free".
Lesson Two: announcing something as a 'fact' doesn't make it one.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 09:14 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

« Reply #23 on: July 15, 2012, 09:04 »
0
 But once it's on wiki, it gets referenced often and the fallacy eventually becomes known as the truth.  That doesn't spread knowledge, that spreads fallacies and changes history over time.
Substitute 'oral tradition', history and newpapers and you'll observe that 'twere ever thus, like the African saying, "Until lions have their historians, tales of hunting will always glorify the hunter."
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 09:15 by ShadySue »

fujiko

« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2012, 09:08 »
0
I know teachers that tell students to contribute to wikipedia as homework and then review the contributions.

Wikipedia is something new, and as something new has its share of fans and a bunch of enemies.

Humans have inaccuracies and bias, it spreads to everything we create. Wikipedia is no exception, experts are no exception.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
4181 Views
Last post June 09, 2007, 19:34
by ianhlnd
4 Replies
2037 Views
Last post October 25, 2008, 12:31
by stormchaser
9 Replies
4126 Views
Last post April 11, 2011, 12:34
by jm
0 Replies
1238 Views
Last post February 03, 2013, 18:20
by Hannafate
7 Replies
2573 Views
Last post May 14, 2015, 11:45
by Semmick Photo

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results