PDA

View Full Version : Do you miss wikipedia today?



prometheus
01-18-2012, 01:43 AM
New upcoming Laws is threatening the way we used to share
information online over the internet freely, Today we canīt reach wiki pages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Michael

glebe digital
01-18-2012, 06:53 AM
Regardless of the merits of the fight against SOPA, I let out a sigh of relief that wikipedia is not accessible today.
The sheer number of errors in its database are more numerable than the sands on the shore, and that is no figure of speech.

Just one for example; wiki state the following portrait to be a picture of Marsilio Ficino:
http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/marsilio_ficinovon_leonardo_da_vinci_.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marsilio_Ficino,von_Leonardo_da_Vinci_.jpg

Complete nonsense! it is actually titled ‘Portrait of a musician’ circa 1485, attributed to both Leonardo Da Vinci & Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio. [Source: Frank Zollner, complete works of Leonardo Da Vinci, Taschen 2007]
Ficino was 52 in 1485, the subject of the portrait is clearly a young man.

The error is then picked up by other websites (http://queercult.com/2010/11/06/marsilio-ficino/), and the error is then spread like a virus of lies.

This is NOT knowledge, free or otherwise.

prometheus
01-18-2012, 06:55 AM
Regardless of the merits of the fight against SOPA, I let out a sigh of relief that wikipedia is not accessible today.
The sheer number of errors in its database are more numerable than the sands on the shore, and that is no figure of speech.

Just one for example; wiki state the following portrait to be a picture of Marsilio Ficino:


Complete nonsense! it is actually titled ‘Portrait of a musician’ circa 1485, attributed to both Leonardo Da Vinci & Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio. [Source: Frank Zollner, complete works of Leonardo Da Vinci, Taschen 2007]
Ficino was 52 in 1485, the subject of the portrait is clearly a young man.

The error is then picked up by other websites (http://queercult.com/2010/11/06/marsilio-ficino/), and the error is then spread like a virus of lies.

This is NOT knowledge, free or otherwise.

Thatīs where you could jump in and correct the error, but unfortunatly not today, so the other errors will still remain.

Michael

OnlineRender
01-18-2012, 07:14 AM
Miss information is the cancer in society ...quote "god" hehe

rcallicotte
01-18-2012, 07:20 AM
Wikipedia is great and affords opportunities to get what is factual out there. I use it all the time. Beats just using Google.

4dartist
01-18-2012, 07:42 AM
I've noticed a few sites down today in protest. Good for them. The big one is www.google.com It's not exactly down, but they are showing how they feel. :) I was glad to see the newtek forums weren't down though haha.

Nangleator
01-18-2012, 07:44 AM
This is the same mindset that tried to ban videocassette recorders. The same mindset that fights regulations that save lives of workers and customers.

So many people want to insist that corporations are people... yet they forget that corporations are without souls, without morals, and without respect for the freedoms of others.

4dartist
01-18-2012, 08:18 AM
I've always been shocked about the mindset in large companies. They really do anything possible to make more money, nearly disregarding any moral values. I wish there were more exceptions.
It really seems like a lot of people are moving against the legislation so hopefully the government will listen.

Sting
01-18-2012, 08:19 AM
FYI, you can still use Wikipedia. If you click on the SOPA/PIPA Blackout link and read the details, there is information about circumventing the blackout by disabling javascript on your browser.

Nicolas Jordan
01-18-2012, 08:29 AM
I use it seldom and I don't really miss it at all. There are plenty of other resources out there on the internet.

jburford
01-18-2012, 08:56 AM
Almost never use it, did not miss it. . . .

More SOAP please! ;-)

Nangleator
01-18-2012, 08:58 AM
Yeah, they can burn down the Library of Congress today, too. I haven't needed it for a while.

warmiak
01-18-2012, 10:24 AM
This is the same mindset that tried to ban videocassette recorders. The same mindset that fights regulations that save lives of workers and customers.

So many people want to insist that corporations are people... yet they forget that corporations are without souls, without morals, and without respect for the freedoms of others.

Well, if corporations are not "people" then by definition they can't operate in terms of morals or values ... or even greed.

Next time you see someone claiming that corporations are "greedy" keep in mind that that someone is implicitly acknowledging that corporations are in fact "human" and are rightly considered as "people" ...

Nangleator
01-18-2012, 10:35 AM
I'll believe corporations are people when Mitt Romney goes to jail for murdering so many. ;)

warmiak
01-18-2012, 10:40 AM
I'll believe corporations are people when Mitt Romney goes to jail for murdering so many. ;)

We all are murderers ... just last week Kodak went into chapter 11.

If you own a phone with a camera, you have their blood on your hands ...

Frankly, if you think about it ... people like Romney are akin to surgeons ( or doctors in general) who deal with gravely ill patients and have to decide if it is already time for harvesting healthy organs or if the patient should still be kept on artificial life support.

Cryonic
01-18-2012, 04:05 PM
Well, if corporations are not "people" then by definition they can't operate in terms of morals or values ... or even greed.

Next time you see someone claiming that corporations are "greedy" keep in mind that that someone is implicitly acknowledging that corporations are in fact "human" and are rightly considered as "people" ...

Or they are just getting lazy with their native tongue. Reporters used to say "A spokesperson for ..." now they say "The FBI says" or "According to Hasbro"...

Corporations aren't, in truth, greedy (since they have no mind, soul or body). They are a large collection of humanity. Each trying to do a job and get paid. So, lots of things can happen simply because the individuals inside the organization can't see everything that is going on.

prometheus
01-19-2012, 12:44 AM
I guess Corporations is the sum of Itīs individuals, and what ever properties it has.

some people will be greedy, some pure nasty and bad, some donīt care much, some has a genuine mind set to do good.

The sum of those orginisations,corporations, and even the sum of peoples properties in different countries defines the rule on how that company or or country will behave.

The leading act would be on the leader wich is based on his/herīs individual power,position and properties.

Sounds pretty simple to me.

Michael

wrightyp100
01-19-2012, 02:18 AM
I don't use it that much. We were told at uni if we use wiki as a reference in essays that we would be marked down, unless we track down where the wiki got its info from.

One of our tutors had a whole chapter of his film book copied and pasted then the copier claimed it was his work. When I left uni 3 years later, legal action was still ongoing...

prometheus
01-19-2012, 02:24 AM
If you plan to use wiki stuff for important work and publishing work, You should of course check out the source material etc.

And do cross reference checking against other sources is vital too.

plain stupid to think wiki as the certain truth, take it for what it is, use it for your purposes with that in mind, and do more indepth research if needed.
The thing is that it is easily accessible and fast to find info.

Michael

JBT27
01-19-2012, 02:25 AM
I do use it, though I haven't missed it for this day. The idea is great, the global encyclopedia always there (except yesterday) ... but the 'anyone can edit' it thing is possibly flawed ... no peer review (except by choice), no accreditation. Ironically, the next step ought to be about taking responsibility for what you write or edit ... maybe that does happen now - I'm not signed up to edit or do anything other than look.

I do know that the page about my town, which is a moderately well-known historic and tourist town, contains alot of errors ... or at least it did the last time I looked - I don't look at it often ... I live here :D

Although not a major deal perhaps, the page about Hugh Walters, the childrens author, is woefully inadequate and contains major errors - it's clearly been written by someone who hasn't paid any attention to the books, or not much.

And no, Google ... a canal does not run at the top of my garden ...

Even with things of interest to me and in my neck of the woods, I see entries that I absolutely know are wrong, because I have the peer reviewed sources and know the people who did the original work ... street cred.

People who do engage in the procedure of research and peer review often cite Wikipedia as something to avoid ... so again, the notion of anyone can write anything is deeply flawed, or at best a Curate's Egg ...

It is however, quite handy for lists of TV shows ...

Julian.

prometheus
01-19-2012, 02:36 AM
I will post and share a scenefile with saturn and a lot of itīs moons, I ripped the diameter data of sandbox universe, and there were only 60 moons there, while wikipedia seem to have more listed.

will have to do some other research too I guess.

Michael

Cryonic
01-19-2012, 08:28 AM
I always find it funny that people complain that Wikipedia has errors in some of their articles (which studies have shown that Wikipedia has about the same error rate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica), yet when asked if they've corrected the errors they've seen, they say no.
The whole point of Wikipedia is for anyone to be able to make changes so that errors, when spotted, can be fixed...

prometheus
01-19-2012, 08:32 AM
I always find it funny that people complain that Wikipedia has errors in some of their articles (which studies have shown that Wikipedia has about the same error rate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica), yet when asked if they've corrected the errors they've seen, they say no.
The whole point of Wikipedia is for anyone to be able to make changes so that errors, when spotted, can be fixed...

Exactly, almost the same as when people elect a government, only to find out they make to many errors, we all can go in there and correct the errors,
Takes too long time between the elections thou:D
But some people complains, but donīt vote.

Blah..was that called for?

UltraViolet
01-19-2012, 12:28 PM
I always find it funny that people complain that Wikipedia has errors in some of their articles (which studies have shown that Wikipedia has about the same error rate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica), yet when asked if they've corrected the errors they've seen, they say no.
The whole point of Wikipedia is for anyone to be able to make changes so that errors, when spotted, can be fixed...

Yep, agreed, why you would fix it if you can use it as a example of inaccuracy and failure of others to fix it :D

JBT27
01-19-2012, 12:36 PM
Yep, agreed, why you would fix it if you can use it as a example of inaccuracy and failure of others to fix it :D

In the case of this whinger, I intend to fix the ones I have seen and reported above ...

Someone has to save Wikipedia from the hosts of the unread ... :D

Julian.

Titus
01-19-2012, 04:23 PM
About wikipedia realibility. There are a number of studies showing that wikipedia is as reliable as other sources like Britannica:

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

shrox
01-19-2012, 04:31 PM
I'll believe corporations are people when Mitt Romney goes to jail for murdering so many. ;)

Yep.

zarti
01-19-2012, 06:32 PM
i use it often ( mostly 3D related stuff ) ,

but 'that' day it didnt happened to use it .

.. So i didnt miss it ,

.. So , the next blackOut should be more noticeable ,

a week in my estimation

.. in order to ,

!! Suck the FOPA !!

--

should i buy a book to read a math formula !?



$=)

Bill1955
01-19-2012, 07:35 PM
Regardless of the merits of the fight against SOPA, I let out a sigh of relief that wikipedia is not accessible today.
The sheer number of errors in its database are more numerable than the sands on the shore, and that is no figure of speech.

Just one for example; wiki state the following portrait to be a picture of Marsilio Ficino:
http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/marsilio_ficinovon_leonardo_da_vinci_.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marsilio_Ficino,von_Leonardo_da_Vinci_.jpg

Complete nonsense! it is actually titled ‘Portrait of a musician’ circa 1485, attributed to both Leonardo Da Vinci & Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio. [Source: Frank Zollner, complete works of Leonardo Da Vinci, Taschen 2007]
Ficino was 52 in 1485, the subject of the portrait is clearly a young man.

The error is then picked up by other websites (http://queercult.com/2010/11/06/marsilio-ficino/), and the error is then spread like a virus of lies.

This is NOT knowledge, free or otherwise.

You mean like CNN which one newscaster states his opinion this hour and the newscaster on the following hour quotes the first newscaster as fact.
And how about all the gossiping that gets pass as news on Headline News Network. And all those supposed studies that claim that something is healthy for you when in reality they are paid commercial from some interest group. Pathetic. At least wikipedia you have a chance to correct the error.

zarti
01-20-2012, 01:28 AM
.. . At least wikipedia you have a chance to correct the error.

True .

wrightyp100
01-20-2012, 01:41 AM
I think on Fox theres a newscaster who was having a debate about religion with an atheist. The athiest was saying that everything could be explained with science.

The newscaster then retorted with "but you cant explain the setting of the sun and the tides" as evidence of God's mysterious ways.

American News programs scare me. As does Sky news here.

Think I might be rambling, but it just shows how facts can be distorted by those in prominent public roles.

Fun.

glebe digital
01-24-2012, 12:40 PM
You mean like CNN which one newscaster states his opinion this hour and the newscaster on the following hour quotes the first newscaster as fact.
And how about all the gossiping that gets pass as news on Headline News Network. And all those supposed studies that claim that something is healthy for you when in reality they are paid commercial from some interest group. Pathetic. At least wikipedia you have a chance to correct the error.

On CNN:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/files.posterous.com/andyandrose/cIth5lPrC1ZC3V7FEoEwDG0YuZwfXkpUGzdeEK2zz40ySEsw1I 4087rsfiVJ/317273_530906373158_94700036_3.jpg.scaled595.jpg?A WSAccessKeyId=AKIAJFZAE65UYRT34AOQ&Expires=1327434160&Signature=5NeDOCbET1S5rfPZiBTJdu7K5X4%3D

nuff said.

on Headline News Network:

I'm lucky enough not to have a TV.

On Wiki:

Is it really my job to spend my life correcting errors?

Nah. Life's too short as it is. :D

prometheus
01-25-2012, 01:21 AM
philosophic thoughts from me..

The truth is rarely a static constant, but rather a subject for changes trough time, as it should be, since the universe isnīt static rather dynamic with changes through time.

If we percieve something as static and constant, well that might only be for our own time and lifespan.

Maybe the truth will hold to itself as the ultimate constant truth when it is pinpointed at that time and under subject for discovery.

But What truth will eventually survive till the end of time? most likely none.

information and discoveries changes throughout time wich colors the truth differently each time, not even our own cells manage to copy information properly, a dynamic loss process that occours everywhere in universe it seems.

Michael

glebe digital
01-25-2012, 03:02 AM
prometheus - Interesting. :)

Surely Truth itself is the only constant, just that we cannot find it?

Truth is ineffable, unknowable; what passes for truth is nothing more than an objective opinion -based on our limited capacity for understanding- wrapped up in a majority consensus.

prometheus
01-25-2012, 03:30 AM
what is and what not..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat



Michael