Wikipedia founder shot dead..
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 6:51 am
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:05 am
OMG
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:13 am
This is what would happen if the DBB dramas were put on the international press.
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:17 am
The wife is now referred to as a "he"?"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.
What's with the quote marks?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.
I think this pretty much sums it up.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. ®
Posted: 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
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
Posted: 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)
The Register = funniest crap EVER!!
(note his birthdate in 1853)
Posted: 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 
Posted: 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...
the register is teh suck...
Posted: 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.
than i clicked on it and felt stupid.
Posted: 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.
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:13 pm
"having originally read the acticle while drunk"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.
In the good words of pretty much everyone, stfu.
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:25 pm
Holy shiţ! I actually agree with mobius on something.
Profanity filter be damned!
Profanity filter be damned!
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 6:23 pm
wiki anything = semi-believable hearsay. 
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:16 pm
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.Duper wrote:wiki anything = semi-believable hearsay.
Posted: 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
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
Posted: 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.
It's not usually inaccurate by any means, unless you go to the seriously obscure.
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:58 pm
A friend of mine once coined Trivial pursuit as: "Facts disguised as knowledge". And I have to concure.Top Gun wrote: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.Duper wrote:wiki anything = semi-believable hearsay.
Posted: 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.
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.