Comments on: wikipedia woes and lies http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2009/01/05/wikipedia-woes-and-lies/ Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:10:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: posturewriter http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2009/01/05/wikipedia-woes-and-lies/comment-page-1/#comment-6632 posturewriter Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:23:08 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=2196#comment-6632 I spent twelve months in Wikipedia and came to the conclusion that it is probably a reliable source of information about boring, routine, non-controversial topics.<br>However, there are some existing editors who know all of the policies and use trickery to ensure that the only point of view that gets presented is their own, and anything else is deleted and the new contributors who put it there will be banned.<br>The result is that the readers only see what is presented, and not what is deliberately missing, but they will get the false impression that they are seeing everything?<br>I have reviewed the methods used by two of the editors here <a href="http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/%7Eposture/Da%2520Costa%2527sSynd%2520Wikiwebpa2.html#anchor175354" rel="nofollow">http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Co...</a> I spent twelve months in Wikipedia and came to the conclusion that it is probably a reliable source of information about boring, routine, non-controversial topics.
However, there are some existing editors who know all of the policies and use trickery to ensure that the only point of view that gets presented is their own, and anything else is deleted and the new contributors who put it there will be banned.
The result is that the readers only see what is presented, and not what is deliberately missing, but they will get the false impression that they are seeing everything?
I have reviewed the methods used by two of the editors here http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Co...

]]> By: Quixie http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2009/01/05/wikipedia-woes-and-lies/comment-page-1/#comment-6505 Quixie Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:57:13 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=2196#comment-6505 I use Wikipedia only sporadically, but, on those times that I have used it, i have found it to be a fairly accurate source when it comes to most subjects. <br><br>The exceptions are (predictably) the traditional perennial dinner-table unmentionable subjects . . . namely sensitive issues, contentious issues where deeply-held religious or political convictions are easily challenged. On these topics, Wikipedia is almost useless, if you ask me. <br><br>Otherwise Wikipedia is fine. There's no need for the kind of uproar that its detractors seem to be working themselves into.<br><br>Ó I use Wikipedia only sporadically, but, on those times that I have used it, i have found it to be a fairly accurate source when it comes to most subjects.

The exceptions are (predictably) the traditional perennial dinner-table unmentionable subjects . . . namely sensitive issues, contentious issues where deeply-held religious or political convictions are easily challenged. On these topics, Wikipedia is almost useless, if you ask me.

Otherwise Wikipedia is fine. There's no need for the kind of uproar that its detractors seem to be working themselves into.

Ó

]]> By: Quixie http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2009/01/05/wikipedia-woes-and-lies/comment-page-1/#comment-6506 Quixie Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:56:13 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=2196#comment-6506 I use Wikipedia only sporadically, but, on those times that I have used it, i have found it to be a fairly accurate source when it comes to most subjects. <br><br>The exceptions are (predictably) the traditional perennial dinner-table unmentionable subjects . . . namely sensitive issues, contentious issues where deeply-held religious or political convictions are easily challenged. On these topics, Wikipedia is almost useless, if you ask me. <br><br>Otherwise Wikipedia is fine. There's no need for the kind of uproar that its detractors seem to be working themselves into.<br><br>Ó I use Wikipedia only sporadically, but, on those times that I have used it, i have found it to be a fairly accurate source when it comes to most subjects.

The exceptions are (predictably) the traditional perennial dinner-table unmentionable subjects . . . namely sensitive issues, contentious issues where deeply-held religious or political convictions are easily challenged. On these topics, Wikipedia is almost useless, if you ask me.

Otherwise Wikipedia is fine. There's no need for the kind of uproar that its detractors seem to be working themselves into.

Ó

]]> By: Quixie http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2009/01/05/wikipedia-woes-and-lies/comment-page-1/#comment-4789 Quixie Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:57:13 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=2196#comment-4789 I use Wikipedia only sporadically, but, on those times that I have used it, i have found it to be a fairly accurate source when it comes to most subjects. <br><br>The exceptions are (predictably) the traditional perennial dinner-table unmentionable subjects . . . namely sensitive issues, contentious issues where deeply-held religious or political convictions are easily challenged. On these topics, Wikipedia is almost useless, if you ask me. <br><br>Otherwise Wikipedia is fine. There's no need for the kind of uproar that its detractors seem to be working themselves into.<br><br>Ó I use Wikipedia only sporadically, but, on those times that I have used it, i have found it to be a fairly accurate source when it comes to most subjects.

The exceptions are (predictably) the traditional perennial dinner-table unmentionable subjects . . . namely sensitive issues, contentious issues where deeply-held religious or political convictions are easily challenged. On these topics, Wikipedia is almost useless, if you ask me.

Otherwise Wikipedia is fine. There's no need for the kind of uproar that its detractors seem to be working themselves into.

Ó

]]> By: Quixie http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2009/01/05/wikipedia-woes-and-lies/comment-page-1/#comment-4790 Quixie Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:56:13 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=2196#comment-4790 I use Wikipedia only sporadically, but, on those times that I have used it, i have found it to be a fairly accurate source when it comes to most subjects. <br><br>The exceptions are (predictably) the traditional perennial dinner-table unmentionable subjects . . . namely sensitive issues, contentious issues where deeply-held religious or political convictions are easily challenged. On these topics, Wikipedia is almost useless, if you ask me. <br><br>Otherwise Wikipedia is fine. There's no need for the kind of uproar that its detractors seem to be working themselves into.<br><br>Ó I use Wikipedia only sporadically, but, on those times that I have used it, i have found it to be a fairly accurate source when it comes to most subjects.

The exceptions are (predictably) the traditional perennial dinner-table unmentionable subjects . . . namely sensitive issues, contentious issues where deeply-held religious or political convictions are easily challenged. On these topics, Wikipedia is almost useless, if you ask me.

Otherwise Wikipedia is fine. There's no need for the kind of uproar that its detractors seem to be working themselves into.

Ó

]]>