Wikipedia, the Free Enclyopedia

[CyTh]

Who enjoys the source known as Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia? None of you knew this, but I'm a pretty avid Wikipedia reader and editor. I edit a variety of articles, and my edits may range from minor edits to actually creating an article. Wikipedia really benefits if you're doing a lot of work in school, and you can easily find information pertaining to a certain subject you're studying on Wikipedia.

Look at my avatar. The funny thing is, it's true. Wikipedia does have an all-seeing eye, which is its' community. Vandalism gets reverted in a second or two. Don't fool with Wiki.

Post your favorite articles on Wiki, not favorite object or movie that has an article, but an article that contains a lot of information and rich of sources.

These look good, not favs, but good...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tassafaronga
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_R...Duties_of_India

[Daveb0t]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass

[rtil]

wikipedia puts forward a lot of benefactors and problems about the internet

the good things about wikipedia are that they probably have the largest unofficial, unpaid staff who are wholly devoted to prowling wikipedia for any spam, vandalism or malicious edits. sure they're all basement dwellers with not much to look forward to in life but what more could you ask for for free. secondly its policies of neutrality are very important for people seeking information. and lastly it's the most up-to-date (and free) encyclopedia in existence (cry me a river britannica).

but of course it isn't perfect. the first problem is that wikipedia has made many people wholly reliant upon it for information and research. this is awful because while it does have a vast wealth of information on virtually every subject, further research should be done outside of wikipedia - most notably the sources they often refer to, such as books in libraries (what are those again?). that and due to its size i'm sure that a lot of the information on it is also untrue. secondly, wikipedia tends to favor information about internet phenomena/plugs and fiction over actual persons and events. i'm sure you've all heard the term wikigroaning (coined by SA i think) where they find articles such as 'names of droids in star wars' far surpass the length of articles about important persons in history or mathematical theory. this is probably due to the fact that most of their devoted members are those basement dwellers i was talking about earlier. there also seems to be a fair amount of advertising for websites and blogs that have information pertaining to other more important subjects in order to receive traffic, i.e. promoting yourself. i understand that kind of thing is against wikipedia rules but i think it's given in to the web 2.0 gimmicks more than it would like to admit. and lastly, the 'edit wars' that go on there are amongst the most pathetic conversations i've ever witnessed. but it's not like anyone has to look at those pages.

[Daveb0t]

wikipedia puts forward a lot of benefactors and problems about the internet

My god, that speech reminds me of the Mods on the BBS and the idiotic discussions on the Where is/ How to forums

[rtil]

ok

[sQueef]

i like wikipedia i probably use it daily (-

[redmongoose]

wikipedia is pretty nutty

[texas]

i think wikipedia is a great place to start your research
though it shouldnt be the only thing thats used
any teacher that doesnt allow you to use it because they know nothing about it is an idiot

also jesus christ mr blue do you hate tba or not
make up your mind

[adamant]

any teacher that doesnt allow you to use it because they know nothing about it is an idiot

if they knew nothing about it
then how would they know it even exists? :-\

[ZekeySpaceyLizard]

MORE LIKE DICKIPEDIA M I RITE GUYS??!?!

[Ying]

i'm sure you've all heard the term wikigroaning (coined by SA i think)

this is all too true

the article on guitar is shorter than the one for guitar hero, and the article on "oobi" is longer than the one for hand.

[CyTh]

i'm sure you've all heard the term wikigroaning (coined by SA i think)

this is all too true

the article on guitar is shorter than the one for guitar hero, and the article on "oobi" is longer than the one for hand.

Then again hands are such a basic subject to have an article about, there won't be much to have written about it in an article.

[redmongoose]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teen_titans

[Sonni]

You should never use wikipedia for academic work.

[W.A.C.]

The Wikipedia entry for The Krusty Krab used to be the most ridiculous entry on Wikipedia. I used to be longer than the entry for McDonalds. I guess some of the people on Wikipedia overtime thought it was such an embarrassment that they ruined the entry. >_> Here's proof that I'm not bullshitting: [LINK]

[ZekeySpaceyLizard]

in its defense, despite being fictional, the krusty krab is better than mcd's

[salutations]

macdo's is pretty gross but


I don't think I'd eat anywhere that had the word 'krusty' in it's name.

[zomfgbie]

vandalising wikipedia is fun

[sQueef]

[LINK]

WOW THAT FORUM IS FUCKING GAY

[rtil]

i'm sure you've all heard the term wikigroaning (coined by SA i think)

this is all too true

the article on guitar is shorter than the one for guitar hero, and the article on "oobi" is longer than the one for hand.

Then again hands are such a basic subject to have an article about, there won't be much to have written about it in an article.

haha, that's what all the overly defensive "wikipedians" say in retaliation. hands is not a basic subject, they are one of the cornerstones of the evolution of mankind and the reason we have risen above any other species. that and they are complex instruments that almost every living thing possesses.

oobi is a kids show about talking hands.