What is Digg?85 Comments
- vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+59Damn! This is going to set Colbert back and his plans to overhaul reality.
- Sarki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28I like the sound of this. Anyone can edit, but for edits to become "live," someone who has been around for a little while has to approve them. In theory it sounds like a good idea, for stopping vandalism.
ROL @ TFA:
Wales would like to develop "Wikipedia 1.0," a frozen version of the encyclopedia's contents where a user could "pull Wikipedia articles and be pretty sure you're not going to get a giant penis picture," but he concedes that the material is not yet that polished. - Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Wikipedia is ok - always check references and if there are none, search for info elsewhere.
And anybody who vandalizes wikipedia needs to get a life .. poor bastards. - warofwrath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Wikipedia doesn't work in theory. It only works in practice. (unattributed quote from an anonymous wiki-user)
All of the most committed users will stick around because they understand this. Only those with an agenda contrary to Wikipedia's core goals and values will leave. - kukang, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Colbert already won the first round of the Hungarian bridge-naming contest with 8,4 million votes. :)
http://digg.com/politics/Colbert_wins_first_round_for_Hungarian_bridge - Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15@sdubois92
Please don;t use such remarks that lightly. That was a terrible episode in history, and using it as you did shows disrespect.
Also please learn to tell the difference between Nazis and Germans. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING - superterran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9What's stopping you from making the changes? The fact that they need to be approved by a member in good standing before they're live? Hell, my parents wouldn't even let me take a piss while I was camping without having a buddy tag along for the ride, do you really think it's logical to let anyone with an internet connection change anything on Wikipedia without somebody else looking over it first? Do you have that much faith in people checking their facts? I agree, it's worked so far - but Steven Colbert is shaking that particular cage. I don't much like what he's doing, but I reckon it's better him than Microsoft in a ploy to sell more Encarta DVD's.
Anyways - Checks and balances are a good thing in any system, especially something as fragile as Wikipedia. When you have idiots like Kim Komando getting on the radio and telling parents to buy paper encylopedias instead of letting their kids use Wikipedia, you have to take some kind of action to insure that it will be a better, more factual, resource in the future. What good is this awesome resource if the people who need it most (think of the kids) aren't using it?
Conventional wisdom says that Wikipedia can't work, which is great because thes guys proved it does. Ten years ago we would be saying 'An open source encylcopdia? Hats off to the poor bastards who pulls that off.' and now we're complaining because they're inacting the digital equivilant of the buddy system. I say this is a good problem for Wikipedia to have. I'm just glad it works and it's updated regularly. I love wikipedia! - Trention, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I just looked it up on Wikipedia, and according to that, it cures cancer, set elephants into reproductive rages, and celebrates 900 yearsof the US constitution. And, I think, ***ERIC IS A FAG***.
- bjkrautk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Obviously, the Germans are looking to validate Wikipedia by rapidly growing the elephant population.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9As the Germans say:
TIME TO PIMP ZEE WIKIPEDIA! - WDot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Sounds brilliant. I hope that some of the "trusted members" would also be fact checkers, so that inaccuracies as well as vandalilsm can be weeded out.
- RichPowers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Exactly. I make lots of minor edits on Wikipedia (commas, capitalization, etc.). Having volunteers sift through this stuff looking for vandalism might create huge backlogs on the site. Besides, I would probably be less inclined to edit Wikipedia if I had to wait for extended periods to see the results; I like to edit an article and be done with it, not check back later hoping it's been updated...
- tdogg241, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Can't wait to go home and do some polishing.
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11nah it does is not broken... but it is can be improved.
the headline should read "Can the Germans improve Wikipedia"
Damn these sensationalists headlines - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I hope everything turns out well.
Wikipedia is such a great source for information, a lot easier then looking up everything on Google.
Wikipedia pretty much gives you huge summaries of everything.
Example:
I was doing a project on world war 2, on line there is a really overwhelming amount of information and I did not really feel like having facts being repeating from site to site.
I go to wikipedia, type in World War 2, boom!
Everything is there, no silly censorship, no stupid "Hitler's hate for the Jews was started because Hitler was rejected from the art school"
None of that crap.
I got long complicated in-depth explanation of everything that happened.
The article was even filled with links to relating articles.
I pretty much had over 60 pages worth of information(I printed everything out) by simply going to one place.
And the best part, the information was written with so many books and other source being used.
These people are freakin geniuses!
*I - sishgupta, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10hes got 17 million as of the most recent episode
- pbjorge12, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I think this could be an issue...
For instance, I was going through the Wikipedia timeline (from 2000 BC to 2000 AD) and I noticed many formatting mistakes such as a bullet missing here or there...
Now if their are many users like me that would edit the article and add the bullet imagine what a pain in the "keester" it'd be for other users to have to wade through and approve these tiny cosmetic changes...
This new system could keep many less-known or used pages from getting neccesary treatment... - Shinta, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Wikipedia is becoming less and less of a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and more of a free encyclopedia 'wikipedians' can edit. For example, when an article is put up for deletion, anybody that was told to vote on the article from an external source, or in other words a 'non-wikipedian', is asked not to vote. The votes for deletion are not supposed to be tallied up as a means of telling whether an article should be deleted or not, proof an article shouldn't be deleted is the purpose of the votes. This results in things like "Encyclopedia Dramatica" being unfairly permanently deleted, because wikipedians have no sense of humour.
New members know just as much about ***** as wikipedians who have nothing to do but act like noobs all day spreading their political views on encyclopedia entries. - Bakkster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8It's at least a step in the right direction, since this should at least minimize vandalism (you can only vandalize once a year, or so). Now if only they enforced citations...
- Wiggles2, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11The Germans can fix anything.
- PoptartKing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There are no factual accurate, comprehensive, and well sourced articles on Wikipedia so we must digg this comment down.
[Spoiler: sarcasm]
e: Wow, that was a quick turn around. Faith in Digg increasing. - progpen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Anything that will give the detractors of Wikipedia less ammunition is a good thing.
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Wikipedia is becoming less and less of a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and more of a free encyclopedia 'wikipedians' can edit."
Yes, but Wikipedians are still "anyone" though. - ronabop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Sort of... actually, it's more like "hey, some editors have been around the block for a while, and thus have a pretty good idea of our policies and what makes for a good article, and other editors only came here today because they saw requests for a vote on a blog, and don't really have a strong understanding of what we're trying to do... that being the case, different votes and comments will have different value."
In the case of ED, it was first deleted as self-adveristing nonsense, and then recreated, and then deleted again (even after an AfD found no consensus) because of a underlying policy that not every single humor or nonsense website gets its own article... WP:NOT includes NOT a web directory. - luvkit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why not simply highlight recent edits in red (or some other color) indicating that a recent change to the article had been made. Articles that don't get as many views could have the highlights longer than ones viewed more often.
The idea would be to show readers that this material has not been 'peer reviewed' yet, and that it is potentially vandalism. Blatant vandalism could not only be disregarded by the readers, but easily identified by the 'experts.' - bash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm firmly in the skeptical camp despite the buddy system.
Part of the appeal of Wikipedia is I see the corrections RIGHT THERE AND THEN. I corrected it, and now I can see the improvements.
It's like an artist chiseling a statue. How would it be better if every time he chiseled a piece off, there would be a time delay before the piece flies off? Is it there for better or for worse?
Who cares; the time delay is disrupting impulsive edits that can greatly clean up the article. - ReyBrujo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3In the time I have been at Wikipedia, I have been impressed with the Germans ability to improve articles. The English Wikipedia has a lot to learn from them. We spend much more time trying to see which picture fits better an article than in content. Without using Fair use images, they just don't have that problem.
- wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I think that system will just play into the hands of the more sinister and organised troublemakers.
I can see Fred Phelps getting 99 people to approve his edits. - ultrachicken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I have no idea what you mean, but I love it! Thank god for regional-specific jokes that aren't american.
- progpen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@pbjorge12
"This new system could keep many less-known or used pages from getting neccesary treatment..."
There doesn't seem to be a lack of volunteers willing to moderate, so hopefully there will not be a major lag between making a change and seeing it on the site.
Personally, I think it is a good thing if Wiki becomes a little less spastic in its convulsive changes and becomes more stable. Make people work to make a change and most of the juvenile sabotage will go away because they won't get the instant gratification of seeing their damage on the site. - MightyGiant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This sounds good for the average reader. But for the average editor (like me), this sounds bad. And I would guess the amount of good edits will be hurt as much as the bad edits will be.
- kragil, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6People from Baden-Würrtemberg could do it. They can do everything! ( Except speak standard german ;-) )
- Wisgary, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wales rocks! Quote of the year!
"Wales would like to develop "Wikipedia 1.0," a frozen version of the encyclopedia's contents where a user could "pull Wikipedia articles and be pretty sure you're not going to get a giant penis picture," but he concedes that the material is not yet that polished." - Qoogirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Your proposition for ESL (English as a Second Language) is already a scary reality around the world to the point of force. It's sad my own family members were scolded in school for not speaking in English 24-7 and punished.
In any case, your idea is an interesting one. It's intriguing. Language is created by culture and vice versa. As such, we're not getting a wholistic view on many of these articles. We could learn a lot more about ourselves and the world in which we live by writing our histories together.
A globally conscious, aware "social encyclopedia" (I'm calling it that) would be great. Seriously great!
And it opens up a lot of job opportunities for bi-tri-lingual people. I'm available for hiring, anyone? Anyone? :) - interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3en.wikipedia.org *is* the default universal wikipedia... There are a lot of 2nd and 3rd language editors who do a fair bit of work on english wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:User_de
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Vandalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digg&diff=71396706&oldid=71385636
The good news is that it's pretty easy to detact and revert vandalism like this. The bad news is that there's alot of vandalism. - las3rjock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Requiring that Wikipedians be relatively well-behaved anyones sounds good to me. On Wikipedia, as in most things, the problem isn't moderates--the problem is the people at the extremes.
- flash200, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If anyone can fix Wikipedia, it's David Hasselhoff
- Tsujigiri, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I've said it before -
Poor Wikipedia. It's idealism at its best in a world of cynicism at its worst.
I hope this fixes their woes. It looks promising but it's a fairly idealistic solution to a problem caused by trusting others too much. I really enjoy their site. - da404lewzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well updating and taking the time to perfect a page will now take even longer as you must now wait for someone else to approve it. Whats the point then... we're supposed to be keeping wikipedia clean, they shouldn't allow people without accounts to post. that would fix alot right there.
- fatas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The Germans are coming"
Hide your precious beer. - vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I didn't say we should throw the other languages (and cultural differences) away. I just wish there was we could all understand each other; as in we are able to communicate easily, but this is the first step to deeper understanding of each other's cultures.
The reason I want English to be standard is because it's (relatively) easy, has the largest vocabulary of any language, and is the most widespread in the world, it's actually a de facto second language for most of the world's population. These are also the reasons why I'm not suggesting Esperanto.
Btw, I'm not a lazy bum, English is actually my third language... - jdawg19, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Whatever the outcome is, I hope that wikipedia will still be a fun and interesting place to get information.
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Vandalism. Or didn't you read the article?
- xofc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Here's an idea:
Keep wikipedia the way it is, but add a parallel 'fully peer reviewed' side to wikipedia that has undergone such scrutiny. This would be similar to the wiki 1.0 idea, but not nearly as static. For those that want the latest on rapidly changing events, there's the original wikipedia. For people who want fully peer reviewed articles, as proposed in the German wikipedia, there's the other system.
Why not have both at once? - brad3378, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Out of curiosity,
Does Wikipedia have the legal right to file a lawsuit against Colbert?
Maybe this is legally considered sabotage, vandalism, or even somehow fall under a technicality of the Homeland Security act? (it should be obvious that I'm not a lawyer :-)
Would it be a good or bad idea for Wikipedia to get the lawyers involved?
On one hand, it might prevent similar future occurrences if a crime has been committed,
but on the other hand, if contributors risk potential legal action for posting inaccurate information, many people may not contribute at all.
Thoughts? - sneeka2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But I dare say English is one of the most inconsistent and culturally most tainted languages. Adopting English would mean to Americanise/Britanise the world.
I'm not sure this is really desirable. Sorry for the bum, but note my ;o) at the end. =) - vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I both agree and disagree. English is very culturally tainted, but since English is so widespread it has been tainted by several different cultures. The influence of the internet on English for the past 10+ years has made this even more true. Today, English is, to a far bigger degree than any other language, the most multi-culturally tainted language, making it also the most neutral language (apart from maybe Esperanto, which has only been tainted by the 30 people who actually know it).
- brad3378, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have to give credit where credit is due, Colbert is one funny mother *****!
But on the other hand, what a ***** prick. I'm just glad he didn't suggest having software developers insert malicious code into Linux. It would definitely be a lot tougher, but the concept is the same. Tens of Thousands of contributors dedicating their hard work towards greatness. May the best code/information win. - tawker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wiki will NOT be suing Colbert for his actions, hell, we're not even sure if it was him making those edits or some audience member who made a phone call to a friend.
Oh, and Brad has better things to do w/ his time -- like having a NPOV :) and eating Sushi and drinking wine as well as walking his dogs :) -
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is