WIKIWHORE and the problem with wikipedia.org

The_Celtic_Bard · Post by **The_Celtic_Bard** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:02 pm

Who is a wikiwhore?

We all know the problems with wikipedia, but don't we all still go there?

What do you love or hate most about wikipedia?

Anyone a wookieepedia whore http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
bublapedia (pokemon) http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Main_Page

uncyclclopedia http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

those are just a few spoof there are more what are they?

this is one confusing post don't you like?

Tyler · Post by **Tyler** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:22 pm

wiki-whore?
is that like an escort service?

Steamwalker · Post by **Steamwalker** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:50 pm

Don't forget Memory Alpha!

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page

Denny · Post by **Denny** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:57 pm

Tyler wrote:wiki-whore?
is that like an escort service?

staffed by amateurs

Steamwalker · Post by **Steamwalker** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:05 pm

Denny wrote:
Tyler wrote:wiki-whore?
is that like an escort service?
staffed by amateurs [CITATION NEEDED]

djm · Post by **djm** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:10 pm

You get what you pay for. Within those constraints, I think wiki is a pretty good resource. Certainly, there is no "certified/verifiable" encyclopedia that comes anywhere near the breadth of subject matter that wiki covers. I think we get pretty good value for the price.

djm

Steamwalker · Post by **Steamwalker** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:10 pm

The_Celtic_Bard wrote:those are just a few spoof there are more what are they?

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

emmline · Post by **emmline** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:07 pm

djm wrote:You get what you pay for. Within those constraints, I think wiki is a pretty good resource. Certainly, there is no "certified/verifiable" encyclopedia that comes anywhere near the breadth of subject matter that wiki covers. I think we get pretty good value for the price.

djm

Agreed. It's a great source of quick info, and if the details are essential one can always do further research.

Lambchop · Post by **Lambchop** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:44 pm

I find it life-saving.

At the moment, I'm taking an online course. The text is a book of apparently unedited readings which is liberally larded with techno-jargon from several different fields. The instructor, who is mostly unavailable, provides little in the way of lecture notes, other than to define a few things in techno-jargon or as themselves, i.e., "a database is when you store things in a database."

I spend a lot of time in Wikipedia trying to figure out what these people are trying to say. Wiki might not be an authoritative source, but it sure gives me enough material to know where to look next.

Thank goodness for this forum, too. Without the kind souls here, I'd be out of my mind with frustration by now.

djm · Post by **djm** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:25 pm

You want frustrating? Frustrating, I can do.

djm

sbfluter · Post by **sbfluter** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:55 pm

I just wonder who are these people with so much arcane knowledge about such strange topics?

Lambchop · Post by **Lambchop** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:08 pm

sbfluter wrote:I just wonder who are these people with so much arcane knowledge about such strange topics?

I also wonder how the heck they know to go there and write about it.

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:53 pm

I think a lot of professionals are writing in,
e.g. historians, law professors, etc. It's extraordinarily
good, IMO, though imperfect. what isn't.

Congratulations · Post by **Congratulations** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:09 pm

I love wikipedia. I spend more time there probably than is healthy.

anniemcu · Post by **anniemcu** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:06 pm

i like it, but i think there is a lot of less than accurate info presented, so don't put much weight on it.

Chiff and Fipple Forums

WIKIWHORE and the problem with wikipedia.org

WIKIWHORE and the problem with wikipedia.org

Re: WIKIWHORE and the problem with wikipedia.org