pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Faces of (wikipedia) FREETARDS !  (Read 14716 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rubyroo

« Reply #25 on: July 15, 2012, 09:11 »
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.

 :D  Great example!


rubyroo

« Reply #26 on: July 15, 2012, 09:17 »
0
-  any 'education' system which does not develop critical learners does not educate.

Well said.  Great point.

Great examples of people who choose their occupations to suit their desired lifestyle also.  A close relative of mine has had an amazing career in technology and acadaemia is now finding that all he wants to do is get away from people and build bird boxes to sell.  He just arrived at the point where everything he was doing felt completely meaningless to him and not true to his nature.

« Reply #27 on: July 15, 2012, 09:18 »
0
snip
Humans have inaccuracies and bias, it spreads to everything we create. Wikipedia is no exception, experts are no exception.

Well said.

I follow the method of checking wikipedia first, then corroborating with some other source or two, just to be sure. But I understand what you are saying, too, grafix04. At one time I would have jumped to the conclusion that delivering pizzas meant an uneducated person, but not any more. People with serious degrees are doing lots of jobs they never thought they would just to make a buck.

I think the link pointing to the wikipedia to talk about the reliability of wikipedia is funny.  :D

rubyroo

« Reply #28 on: July 15, 2012, 09:20 »
0
Humans have inaccuracies and bias, it spreads to everything we create. Wikipedia is no exception, experts are no exception.

Yes exactly, and as you say Wikipedia is relatively new.  A constant work-in-progress.  If people don't already understand that before they use it, they really haven't been paying attention.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #29 on: July 15, 2012, 09:21 »
0
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

Well discovered, RubyRoo  ;D

« Reply #30 on: July 15, 2012, 09:33 »
0
Look here's one: "The moon is made of blue, not green, cheese". Who's to stop me writing that?

mmmmm......... cheeeeesse....

rubyroo

« Reply #31 on: July 15, 2012, 09:57 »
0
Thanks Sue, I'm glad to know someone saw that! 

LOL @ Noodle's cheese delight.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #32 on: July 15, 2012, 10:03 »
0
I think the link pointing to the wikipedia to talk about the reliability of wikipedia is funny.  :D
Yes, internal referencing was something we learned about very early at university. But at least in the case of that wikipedia article, the links are there for verification or otherwise.
When I had new courses to teach, and I was researching them, I learned very quickly that some 'authoritative' sources had links which were either moribund/non-existent (even when linked to from apparently very new sites) or the links didn't provide the evidence that the 'authority' claimed they did. Sometimes, reading the source through gave the opposite conclusion than the 'authoritative' source had come to. Maybe they hoped that the 'authority' of the link would add gravitas to their own argument, and assumed that no one would bother to actually check.

grafix04

« Reply #33 on: July 15, 2012, 10:19 »
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


Okay so he's got a philosophy and political science degree.  Out of the 1.1 million articles he's edited, how many were on philosophy and political science?  Again, I didn't judge him because of his occupation, but rather judged him because there's so much inaccurate info on wiki - which leads me to believe he's not doing a very good job or there's no keeping up with the inaccurate information written on there.  I have a beef with wiki (not with the person) because it's messed up and referenced by so many as accurate.  The entire site to me is a waste of time.  The site would be useful only if experts in certain fields were allowed to write those articles which referenced credible sources.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: July 15, 2012, 10:33 »
0
Okay so he's got a philosophy and political science degree.  Out of the 1.1 million articles he's edited, how many were on philosophy and political science?  Again, I didn't judge him because of his occupation, but rather judged him because there's so much inaccurate info on wiki - which leads me to believe he's not doing a very good job or there's no keeping up with the inaccurate information written on there.  I have a beef with wiki (not with the person) because it's messed up and referenced by so many as accurate.  The entire site to me is a waste of time.  The site would be useful only if experts in certain fields were allowed to write those articles which referenced credible sources.
Someone with a degree knows how to research and verify information. That's a transferable skill.
If 'many' reference it blanketly as 'accurate' your beef should be directed at them. A system where people can wiki is what it is.
Experts can be biased and unscientific if they have an axe to grind - else why would you get 'expert witnesses' on opposite sides of court cases?
It's up to the user to evaluate and verify what they read/hear/see anywhere, whether it's on a forum, wikipedia, a government propoganda site, a book, a newspaper (hahahahaha), television etc etc.

« Reply #35 on: July 15, 2012, 10:44 »
0
The fact is that I've come across through inaccurate information in the wikipedia a handful of times, when searching about themes I know. That's the reason why I don't trust wikipedia to learn about themes I don't know almost nothing about.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #36 on: July 15, 2012, 10:58 »
0
The fact is that I've come across through inaccurate information in the wikipedia a handful of times, when searching about themes I know. That's the reason why I don't trust wikipedia to learn about themes I don't know almost nothing about.
Fair enough, but using that criterion, I wouldn't read much.
But in fact, I read widely and compare the sources. As I was taught to do, and taught others to do.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #37 on: July 15, 2012, 11:45 »
0
Quote
Out of the 1.1 million articles he's edited, how many were on philosophy and political science?  Again, I didn't judge him because of his occupation, but rather judged him because there's so much inaccurate info on wiki - which leads me to believe he's not doing a very good job or there's no keeping up with the inaccurate information written on there.

amazing how this thread is developing. An editor on Wikipedia doesn't write the articles - they are written by thousands of contributors with some knowledge, often detailed, of the subject. An editors job is to make sure that claims are validated, that references are followed up, that articles that are pure fantasy are marked as such, or that articles that lack sufficient factual basis are similarly marked. In no way, do they write 1.1 million articles - it would be stupid to think that they did, in my view...

When are we going to get to the real point - Wikipedia is a left wing plot to remove our freedoms... ;D

Steve

« Reply #38 on: July 15, 2012, 12:29 »
0
What have these (probably very nice, intelligent) people actually done to you directly?  A completely unwarranted attack, as far as I can see.

+ 1 (shall I shave??)

grafix04

« Reply #39 on: July 15, 2012, 12:36 »
0
Quote
Out of the 1.1 million articles he's edited, how many were on philosophy and political science?  Again, I didn't judge him because of his occupation, but rather judged him because there's so much inaccurate info on wiki - which leads me to believe he's not doing a very good job or there's no keeping up with the inaccurate information written on there.

amazing how this thread is developing. An editor on Wikipedia doesn't write the articles - they are written by thousands of contributors with some knowledge, often detailed, of the subject. An editors job is to make sure that claims are validated, that references are followed up, that articles that are pure fantasy are marked as such, or that articles that lack sufficient factual basis are similarly marked. In no way, do they write 1.1 million articles - it would be stupid to think that they did, in my view...

When are we going to get to the real point - Wikipedia is a left wing plot to remove our freedoms... ;D

Steve

Urgh, isn't that what I stated?

« Reply #40 on: July 15, 2012, 12:37 »
0
What have these (probably very nice, intelligent) people actually done to you directly?  A completely unwarranted attack, as far as I can see.

+ 1 (shall I shave??)

+2.  I use everyday Wikipedia to get updated and everything there match with editorials and newspapers.

« Reply #41 on: July 15, 2012, 15:03 »
0
....I use everyday Wikipedia to get updated and everything there match with editorials and newspapers.
Probably why they have so much information that's totally wrong.  The newspapers frequently exaggerate and often make things up.  The only thing I believe is true in newspapers is the cover price.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 15:04 by sharpshot »

« Reply #42 on: July 15, 2012, 16:59 »
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.

Or BHO who can't crack an egg without blaming someone else.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 17:02 by Mantis »

antistock

« Reply #43 on: July 16, 2012, 01:52 »
0
why it's so hard for many here to see the light ?

i've worked and dealt in the academia and as much as we can criticize the scientific way to make things work at least if you publish a paper on something it must still be validated by expert doing a peer review, and it must be signed by the authors.

wikipedia is just a dump written by anonymous people and "reviewed" by hobbyists and enthusiasts with no academic backing, no authority in their subject of expertise, no clue about most of what they write or edit and no way for readers to know who's the author and why an article has been deleted or modified by complete strangers without any background relative to the contents they're editing.

everybody knows that and rightfully in academia people laugh about wikipedia.
even the co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, thinks exactly like me.

but the sad thing is that now the average users take wikipedia for real and they trust it .. 100% !

these crazy guys editing 1 million articles are probably suffering from a few personality disorders or obsessive compulsive syndromes, it can't be otherwise as they're literally glued to wikipedia 24x7 and earning zero money back while the owner of wikipediaJimmy Wales is a millionaire and laughing all the way to the bank.

so why i'm writing this in a photo forum ? because they start with wikis and one day they will go on with photos as well ! freetardism is not just a wiki or a concept, it's a whole full fledged CULT and it's spreading like wildfire.

secondly these freetard madness infecting the whole web must be stopped and wikipedia is the first culprit, third these guys are a joke and must be exposed for all to see, fourth wikipedia bring a wrong message to its users, people think wikipedia is all for free and bla bla bla , NO wrong 100% it's backed by the millions of dollars of Unesco and their other big sponsors, it's not a charity it's a huge business and they don't pay asingle dime to those who work on it.

and finally, it's not a mistery most of these wiki articles are a rewrite of legitimate articles stolen all around the web and from paper encyclopedias and expensive specialist books.

some of these freetards in the articles even admit they're "porting" to wikipedia many books and stuff they've on paper.
isn't this plagiarism ? is this legal ? once every information in the world will be freely available on wikipedia how will publishers and authors survive ? if for instance it takes a couple month to write a scientific paper which is also only available for a 30$ fee on NCBI who the F are you to steal all the data and write some sh-it article on wikipedia for all to see and without any credit or link to my paper ? this is not fair and it's not even "fair use", it's just "steal, ripoff, and forget".
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 02:00 by antistock »

antistock

« Reply #44 on: July 16, 2012, 01:53 »
0
and by the way,

can't see why suddenly i'm ignored by more than 10 people, if you guys are not up to deal with opposing views you better stick with a blog or with facebook and leave the rest of us discussing in forums, you guys are a sad joke !

« Reply #45 on: July 16, 2012, 03:03 »
0
There's 13 sensible people that are ignoring you.  All your posts are the same.  What can be done to make things change that will actually work?  I like wikipedia.  I'm from an academic background.  It's easy to check references and see what's based on facts and what's been made up.  There's people that believe all the lies they read in the newspapers but nothings been done to stop them publishing.  All the problems with the internet were around before it was invented.  Good luck with your mission to change everything to exactly how you want it, it's a complete waste of time.

antistock

« Reply #46 on: July 16, 2012, 08:18 »
0
There's 13 sensible people that are ignoring you.  All your posts are the same.  What can be done to make things change that will actually work?  I like wikipedia.  I'm from an academic background.  It's easy to check references and see what's based on facts and what's been made up.  There's people that believe all the lies they read in the newspapers but nothings been done to stop them publishing.  All the problems with the internet were around before it was invented.  Good luck with your mission to change everything to exactly how you want it, it's a complete waste of time.

there's not a law forcing newspapers to write the truth or to double check their facts and their sources.
basically, they're only accountable in case of dematation or of going against the journalistic law of conduct.

they never pretended to be a safe and trustable source of information ! that's not their job.

encyclopedias are a whole different matter, they've been invented to be THE source par excellence and to contain articles
that are carefully checked and double checked by experts in their fields.

it's a tragedy that people is playing down the importance of peer review.

with wikipedia anyone can be an expert, but they're still not, and they never will, no matter if they edit 1 million articles, they're just crazy freetards.

EmberMike

« Reply #47 on: July 16, 2012, 08:33 »
0
...can't see why suddenly i'm ignored by more than 10 people, if you guys are not up to deal with opposing views you better stick with a blog or with facebook and leave the rest of us discussing in forums, you guys are a sad joke !

I think most people are all for opposing views, but that's not what you're presenting here. This is just a hateful rant against these writers, followed by a posting of their photos as if we're expected to glare at their images in some mocking sort of way. The term you use to describe them in the topic title isn't exactly helping your argument, either.

If you really want to open a discussion, try doing exactly that. Hold the rants, mockery, and name-calling.

fujiko

« Reply #48 on: July 16, 2012, 09:01 »
0
wikipedia is just a dump written by anonymous people and "reviewed" by hobbyists and enthusiasts with no academic backing, no authority in their subject of expertise, no clue about most of what they write or edit and no way for readers to know who's the author and why an article has been deleted or modified by complete strangers without any background relative to the contents they're editing.

You cannot claim red if green is true.
Either you know who the author is or you don't, and if you don't you cannot claim anything about their background, academic backing, authority.

Are you an expert on wikipedia?

And I'm sorry to tell you that sharing knowledge (or simply sharing anything) is much older than wikipedia or the internet.

Why so much hate?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #49 on: July 16, 2012, 09:07 »
0
Why so much hate?
Yup.
@antistock: go take a chill pill.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
4765 Views
Last post June 09, 2007, 19:34
by ianhlnd
4 Replies
2450 Views
Last post October 25, 2008, 12:31
by stormchaser
9 Replies
4763 Views
Last post April 11, 2011, 12:34
by jm
0 Replies
1936 Views
Last post February 03, 2013, 18:20
by Hannafate
7 Replies
3485 Views
Last post May 14, 2015, 11:45
by Semmick Photo

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle