Wikipedia . . .
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5382
Printed Date: November 24 2024 at 10:39
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Wikipedia . . .
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Wikipedia . . .
Date Posted: April 21 2005 at 18:05
|
questions: 1. do you personally use this resource ? 2. how much do you trust the quality of the content ? 3. have you personally made any contributions to it ? |
Replies:
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: April 21 2005 at 18:18
|
1. Yes i have. 2. I trust it to an extent. They do allow just anybody to go about and just change things. I wonder how that works. I mean, anybody can go and change very valueable and correct information and make it into a steaming heap of lies and irrealavance. I don't like that, and i can't honestly say that i think it works like that. Does anybody know how? 3. No i do not. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Beau Heem
Date Posted: April 21 2005 at 18:20
|
1. No, i don't 2. I'm blue-eyed, so I probably would if I ever got to use their services. 3. Me & contributing. Hardly even worth mentioning in the same sentence...  I do have a (rather vague) idea what wikipedia is, though... Cheers -Beau ------------- --No enemy but time-- |
Posted By: Fitzcarraldo
Date Posted: April 22 2005 at 08:02
|
1. Yes. 2. The quality of the content of the things I have consulted has been high. I normally consult several references to be sure of my facts and, to date, the information in Wikipedia has tallied well with other sources, and in some cases provided more information than the other sources. Also, the discussion tab often quotes posts pointing out apparent discrepancies, errors or omissions (if any). One's entries are monitored (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction ) so abuse will be picked up (not necessarily instantly), but honesty and responsibility are two of the cornerstones of this wonderful project. 3. I have only corrected something (a typographical error that resulted in a link not working). Why do you ask, utah_man?
|
Posted By: Logos
Date Posted: April 22 2005 at 08:40
It doesn't always work. One good example is the battle between evolutionists and creationists there. Whenever someone writes something about evolution or just about anything related to it, there's always some fundamentalist ready to go and mess it up. (ButI haven't checked that thing out for a while so I don't know how they handle the situation these days..) But other than that, I've checked many things from Wikipedia and the information there seems valid, so I very much trust in it. |
Man With Hat wrote:Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: April 22 2005 at 09:22
|
1. Yes, a little. 2. Not totally, but it's well "policed," I believe. 3. No.
------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: April 22 2005 at 11:14
|
I use it... ...and abuse it. I vandalize on occasion. ie. Once I put a pic of a whale in the kirstie alley page. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 23 2005 at 10:41
|
I,ve never even heard of it! Wicked what? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: April 23 2005 at 12:54
|
Yes, and I used to a lot more
2. how much do you trust the quality of the content ? Very much so, a magazine monitored it and the average clearup time of vanadlism is five minutes.
Yes, on a few things (username: goosegoosegoose)
for anybody wondering what the mystical wonder is: http://www.wikipedia.org - www.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org - en.wikipedia.org (english) |