Boat Drinks  

Go Back   Boat Drinks > General > General Disruption

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-10-2007, 10:26   #21
iicatsii
Columbian Coffee
 
iicatsii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 55
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garp View Post
Which is why numerous independant tests have proven Wikipedia to be more accurate than such luminaries as Encyclopedia Britannica and so on.

Links please, or it never happened.
iicatsii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007, 10:31   #22
Fayshun
Rocket Fuel
 
Fayshun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Adrift in the Orca
Posts: 6,845
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iicatsii View Post
Links please, or it never happened.
http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
__________________

We must move forward not backward, upwards not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling...
Fayshun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007, 10:51   #23
iicatsii
Columbian Coffee
 
iicatsii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 55
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayshun View Post
I've seen that link before, it comes from the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia itself (lol bias) and it's years old. Since then there's been the plagiarism scandal, Essjay scandal, Wikiscanner scandal.

On top of that other facts about wikipedia have been changed by Jimbo Wales himself, like for instance the money that was invested to start up Wikipedia didn't come from a pornography site, but a search engine that dealt with 'erotic imagery' and that Jimbo came up with Wikipedia all by himself, with no help from anyone?

Saying that, Wikipedia is going to change. They're testing out the closed editing platform over at the German version. If successful, then Wikipedia will become more like Citizendium.
iicatsii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007, 10:56   #24
Fayshun
Rocket Fuel
 
Fayshun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Adrift in the Orca
Posts: 6,845
Default

Wasn't the study done by Nature though?
__________________

We must move forward not backward, upwards not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling...
Fayshun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007, 11:06   #25
iicatsii
Columbian Coffee
 
iicatsii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 55
Default

Yes. What I meant is that when it comes to criticism of Wikipedia, they only let mild criticism to be added to the article due to the fact that the study said that Wikipedia was marginally less accurate than Britannica (any thing more comes under the BADSITES policy.) Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Nature was biased.

The study is years out of date though, a lot has changed.

Last edited by iicatsii; 05-10-2007 at 11:09.
iicatsii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007, 17:07   #26
Will
BBx woz 'ere :P
 
Will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 2,147,487,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garp View Post
Which is why numerous independant tests have proven Wikipedia to be more accurate than such luminaries as Encyclopedia Britannica and so on.
LOL!
__________________
No No!
Will is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:05.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.