What is Digg?33 Comments
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22much like democracy, the flaw in wikipedia is those with enough money and influence can bend the truth to suit their interests.
- jeffness, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19I played around a bit with the Wikipedia Scanner and most of my "finds" were legitimate corrections. a local hospital here made several corrections to their article, clarifying the type of hospital it was and services offered, which is perfectly legitimate.
That said, I've run into numerous articles that just "feel" like they were written by a representative of the institution. One for instance is the article on scouting. It and alot of its' associated articles just "feel" like something is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting - pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12who could have ever imagined that corporations have a vested interest in hiding the truth about their actions?
- Pix869, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I can't honestly believe how many people are just fine with companies skewing an article one way or the other, when they should be using a neutral point of view.
- CarzorStelatis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Let me suggest 'how big firms edit Wikipedia' to save people from reading the article: they go to the article they're interested in and click 'edit this page'.
- Tetraca, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm sure that if the Citizendium were more popular than Wikipedia the same situation would arise.
- goffy59, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Wikipedia has been more truthful and helpful then public school. And people who use the word noob are lame. I don't like reading American history that's geared to make us look good and other people bad. And I dont trust the department of education either. Of course they will only allow what they think should be allowed in the books we read. Wikipedia; as long as noone abuses it, is a great place to go for just about anything.
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"if you do use wiki"
You know, there are many wikis, not only Wikipedia. - theodenking, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Month old news FTW.
Seriously, this even made it to the mainstream media last week, and they covered it in more depth. - Pix869, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4NPOV.
Do you know it, *****? - noblepenguin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Or tarnish that of their competitors.
- MadSpRacer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This was a very good article. To be honest I never thought of companies and firms making edits for there advantage in Wikipedia. Never-the-Less I still use and love Wikipedia, it comes in handy.
- jsballardx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I hate when people use the "word" "noob".
Upmod - darlyn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No.
- oceanbourne, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A number of schools I attended have a Wikipedia entries that reads oddly like the schools' own publicity. However, students, alumni, and others have added less-biased information . . . although, anyone with any connection with an institution is by nature going to be biased. Whereas people with no connection may not be interested nor informed. So it's a toss-up I guess. Wikipedia is still the best resource for general info on everything from French history to animé. It's good that people are noting who is wirting more-biased articles though.
- abhiroop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Should of??? Please go back to nursery...
- ryobertbyeling, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2***** it, let them do it, they end up getting caught since they're obviously noobs, and they get ridiculed. This is actually working out rather well.
- krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Democracy and Capitalism are Pure Power. There is NO guarantee they will be kept clean, but they are not inherently dirty. Some people believe that the government should control things like this so that people don't have to worry about them, but that has been shown to fail every time, because if the people can't and don't police the government, nobody can. Ultimately, the responsibility to ensure the truth to information you are receiving falls in the hands of the people. This is the endless vigilance that the founders of the United States advised about. It is not good enough to simply believe that evil should go away. You have to force it away yourself and make it submit to the truth. YOU are the authority, to vote for the truth, to buy only the products and into the corporations that serve humanity properly.
- 300zxer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"But one person cannot make a difference."
- dnields, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"didnt we see this last week?"
Yep, we sure did. - ricorodriguez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0you can't understand phonetic spelling, please go back to nursery...
- ricorodriguez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Can't you just create a username so nobody can see your ip address and thus wikiscanner can't associate you with a company?
- nallabackwards, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0isnt this article about abusing wiki?
- profertel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yes, you can create a username. But if your username trolls too much, you'll get banned. Also, even if you have a username, wikipedia's servers still log your IP-- it's just not publicly on the page.
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Well it's proven to be rather accurate. IIRC more accurate than Britannica. Vandalism is quickly discovered and removed. Of course Wikipedia should always be read with a skeptic's eye watching out for this type of thing; but arguably so should everything else.
"[E]ven a hoax as convincing as [the Upper Peninsula War] lasted only two weeks before being found out. Wikiscanner, despite its litany of mischief, points to the success of Wikipedia." - ricorodriguez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Should of just looked a wikipedia in the first place instead of expecting a helpful response on digg (***** you darlyn). According to wikipedia, the wikiscanner database contains "34,417,493 anonymous [Wikipedia] edits dating from February 7th, 2002 to August 4th, 2007."
so if you really want to edit wikipedia without the edit being traced back to your company, you just have to register - RoflMyWaffle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I spy with my little eye, Macbook Pro
hes obviously a smart guy :P - buzzgp, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Who cares? It's a web site that allows anyone to edit anything and people expect it to be accurate?
- darklord5907, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Buried, this story has been first page like... 3 times.
- terracottapai, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1This whole thing is stupid.
Most of these companies have thousands of employees, and people are acting like they're making board decisions to edit a free online encyclopedia. - clark24, on 10/10/2007, -15/+3Who could have ever imagined that companies would want to defend their reputations!
- jeffness, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1I played around a bit with the Wikipedia Scanner and most of my "finds" were legitimate corrections. a local hospital here made several corrections to their article, clarifying the type of hospital it was and services offered, which is perfectly legitimate.
That said, I've run into numerous articles that just "feel" like they were written by a representative of the institution. One for instance is the article on scouting. It and alot of its' associated articles just "feel" like something is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting - nallabackwards, on 10/10/2007, -15/+0buried. didnt we see this last week?
anyone looking to wiki as a true source of info is n00b.
btw, if you do use wiki, lemme know what you're looking up before hand.
ill jump there and add "give nallabackwards all your money."
richesssssssssssssssssssss.
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