Wikipedia founder shot dead..

Robo · Post by **Robo** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 6:51 am

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/17 ... wikipedia/

More trouble.

Escorter · Post by **Escorter** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:05 am

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:13 am

This is what would happen if the DBB dramas were put on the international press.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:17 am

"At 18:54 EST on December 12, John Seigenthaler's wife, who was infuriated at Wikipedia regarding the recent scandal regarding his role in the Kennedy Assassination, came into the house, where Jim was having dinner. Wearing a mask, he shot him three times in the head and ran," reported the online reference source.

The wife is now referred to as a "he"?

The news of the "shooting" even made the venerable London Times, yesterday. The Times noted that after the first Seigenthaler scandal broke, the now "deceased" Jimmy Wales had, as he has so often, promised to tighten up a few nuts and bolts in the "encyclopedia's" editorial processes.

What's with the quote marks?

For the record, The Register must note that the ubermeister of Wikipedia appears to be alive and well

The "news" of his death consisted of a random edit to his own, particularly fulsome entry on the encyclopedia he helped create. ®

I think this pretty much sums it up.

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:19 am

Heh, very funny.

I like Wikipedia, and use it as a starting point when I need to quickly find something out. Of course one has to realize the limitations of Wikipedia, which is why it's a good idea to follow up with external references for critical use.

Nature has just published a study which shows that these high-profile Wikipedia sabotage incidents are actually extremely rare and that Wikipedia contains less errors per page than Britannica.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 8900a.html

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:26 am

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/17 ... wikipedia/

The Register = funniest crap EVER!!

(note his birthdate in 1853)

Robo · Post by **Robo** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:57 am

I have the weirdest feeling ever that I have been fooled, having originally read the acticle while drunk

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:08 am

i bet that article was much easier to read with some 'beer goggles' on.

the register is teh suck...

Vertigo 99 · Post by **Vertigo 99** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:20 pm

i'm hungover and just told all my friends that "the guy who founded wikipedia has been shot!" when i saw this thread.

than i clicked on it and felt stupid.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:43 pm

This is what happens when you don't confirm your sources. Blindly accepting ANY source of info on the web is grade-A stupidity.

Robo · Post by **Robo** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:13 pm

Mobius wrote:This is what happens when you don't confirm your sources. Blindly accepting ANY source of info on the web is grade-A stupidity.

"having originally read the acticle while drunk"

In the good words of pretty much everyone, stfu.

Sting_Ray · Post by **Sting_Ray** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:25 pm

Holy shiţ! I actually agree with mobius on something.

Profanity filter be damned!

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 6:23 pm

wiki anything = semi-believable hearsay.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:16 pm

Duper wrote:wiki anything = semi-believable hearsay.

Why is that? I can see if you're talking about historical info, but for pop culture (games, TV, movies, etc.), Wikipedia can't be beat. I could literally spend hours cruising from link to link, just reading random articles full of mostly useless information. It's like Trivial Pursuits to the twelfth power.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:25 pm

man this place has done that too me a few times...

a> thread : blah blah haha

b> post : link + witty indroduction

c> me : click.... lol .... click.... lol ... click .... lol ....

*snip* two hours pass *snip*

x> me : damn... 8 replies already!

y> if new "post : link + witty introduction"; then; goto c; else reply : lol

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:55 am

Well, yeah. For all the wikipedia hating that goes on, there's pretty much nothing better if you just want a quick idea of pretty much anything.

It's not usually inaccurate by any means, unless you go to the seriously obscure.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:58 pm

Top Gun wrote:
Duper wrote:wiki anything = semi-believable hearsay.
Why is that? I can see if you're talking about historical info, but for pop culture (games, TV, movies, etc.), Wikipedia can't be beat. I could literally spend hours cruising from link to link, just reading random articles full of mostly useless information. It's like Trivial Pursuits to the twelfth power.

A friend of mine once coined Trivial pursuit as: "Facts disguised as knowledge". And I have to concure.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:50 am

wikipedia is a great idea and works quite well. i spend ages reading it. how many times bigger is it than a traditional encyclopedia? like a bajollion infinity kazillion!

i love it like i love fluffy kittens.

the story about the lapse in the main wiki entry is funny, but it just shows how easy it is to contribute OR mess it up. I find it quite interesting that there are some people who seem to be performing sorts of SOCIAL EXPERIMENTS with wiki - there seems to be errors experimentally & purposely put in, just to see how long they last before someone notices. One such social experiment i think i've come across is where someone will try to sneak through something purposefully (but hard to notice) incorrect, and combine it with some other VERY small typos that are used merely as "diversions" - so someone else will correct the typos in the vandal edit (not knowing the whole edit should be scrapped) and this puts the vandal edit further down the "recent edits" page - which makes it look more legit. clever eh?

To get an accurate idea of how the wiki naturally works, one just needs to take a look at the history page for any reasonably popular article - you'll notice all kinds of "update: vandalism removed - reverted back to previous edit" stuff. it's very impressive how in the end it all just... WORKS.