- This topic has 24 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I was browsing Wikipedia and realized that there wasn’t an article about Windstones, or about Melody! I thought that I’d throw the idea out there, and maybe someone who knows more than I do about Windstones might take a crack at it. 😀
Actually, the staff has discussed this before. The conclusion was thus:
Quote:Wikipedia admins are anal about any company or self-promotion that doesn’t have some sort of secondary references or history to it. … It would be “speedy delete” flagged for Original Invention and Self-Promotion.
Volunteer mod- I'm here to help! Email me for the best response: nambroth at gmail.com
My art: featherdust.comlamortefille wrote:Too bad they’re not anal about all of the mis-information on their site. 🙄
😆 😆
Remember when they said Sinbad the comedian had died? And he said “Nope, I’m still alive!” And then they wonder why people don’t take them more seriously. 🙄
lamortefille wrote:Too bad they’re not anal about all of the mis-information on their site. 🙄
Oh god. Tell me about it! The Mario series’ Birdo is a MAN in Japan and always has been! Freakin state facts, not opinions! It seems I always find some mis-information on that site, and when changed AND sources it is still taken down 🙄
My son had to do a report with information found online and his teacher listed Wiki as a possible source. 🙄 We told him no way!
lamortefille wrote:My son had to do a report with information found online and his teacher listed Wiki as a possible source. 🙄 We told him no way!
Did you know university professors do that too? Seriously when we were looking up stuff for an assignment in my spectroscopy class, the prof recommended Wiki. My reaction was basically along the lines of…. 😯 😯 😯
I thought we abandoned Wiki the minute we got accepted into university.
lamortefille wrote:Too bad they’re not anal about all of the mis-information on their site.
It’s not a proprietary encyclopedia; it’s a peoples’ encyclopedia. If you see something you know is wrong and you have references to show that you are right, you are supposed to edit the article accordingly.
This is not something I’ve ever done, though; I’m never THAT convinced I am right…
But don’t forget that the Encyclopedia Britannica is written by solicited authors who are supposedly knowledgeable in the field they are writing about. They can make mistakes too, or state things as fact that are supposition, and it’s a lot harder to correct errors there. Particularly after the EB gets quoted as a source by other writers. (citation needed)
The Castle [Dave wrote:“]
lamortefille wrote:Too bad they’re not anal about all of the mis-information on their site.
It’s not a proprietary encyclopedia; it’s a peoples’ encyclopedia. If you see something you know is wrong and you have references to show that you are right, you are supposed to edit the article accordingly.
This is not something I’ve ever done, though; I’m never THAT convinced I am right…
But don’t forget that the Encyclopedia Britannica is written by solicited authors who are supposedly knowledgeable in the field they are writing about. They can make mistakes too, or state things as fact that are supposition, and it’s a lot harder to correct errors there. Particularly after the EB gets quoted as a source by other writers. (citation needed)
Absolutely. Cross-check your references, and in the end you can do a lot worse than Wikipedia!
Volunteer mod- I'm here to help! Email me for the best response: nambroth at gmail.com
My art: featherdust.comThe Castle [Dave wrote:“]
lamortefille wrote:Too bad they’re not anal about all of the mis-information on their site.
It’s not a proprietary encyclopedia; it’s a peoples’ encyclopedia. If you see something you know is wrong and you have references to show that you are right, you are supposed to edit the article accordingly.
That sounds like a fun project, but I don’t have time for it. Windstone takes up enough of my time as it is.😆
This is not something I’ve ever done, though; I’m never THAT convinced I am right…
I learn something new every day.😉
But don’t forget that the Encyclopedia Britannica is written by solicited authors who are supposedly knowledgeable in the field they are writing about. They can make mistakes too, or state things as fact that are supposition, and it’s a lot harder to correct errors there. Particularly after the EB gets quoted as a source by other writers. (citation needed)
That may be 100% true, but I’m talking about a 6th grader here. If he is told by his teacher to use Wiki as a source, he’s going to take everything on the site as fact. There may be misinformation on both sites, but I think he has a better shot looking up info for his age group on EB or other similar sites. Adults are (hopefully) better able to spot the misinformation on Wiki and may correct it if they are so inclined. They might just have a good laugh about it and move on. My opinion also takes into account the myriad of people with nothing better to do than post misinformation on the site. Sure it might be corrected, but will it be corrected in time for my son’s report or before somebody uses the information to make an erroneous decision?
Again I will say, you have your opinion and I have mine, so that’s that.
Jennifer wrote:Actually, the staff has discussed this before. The conclusion was thus:
Quote:Wikipedia admins are anal about any company or self-promotion that doesn’t have some sort of secondary references or history to it. … It would be “speedy delete” flagged for Original Invention and Self-Promotion.
I don’t think they kick out articles that give a history or social perspetive of a company or artist. Nobody here has taken the time to write something up or figure out how to submit it but someone really should. If anybody wants to take a stab at it and submit a draft to us first we can make it accurate. Many submissions are quite brief so it doesn’t have to be too involved.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
