What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
69 Comments
- w09p, on 03/23/2008, -3/+88Overstock can't cry if they're abusing Wiki's guidelines. It's not advertising space.
- harvested, on 03/23/2008, -2/+48Um, what's the BFD? They used Wikipedia as an advertising tool, then got banned from editing, get over it.
- reeder, on 03/23/2008, -11/+57Wikipedia may suck, but it's better than if the government or corporation ran it. Open Source is the best structure for information, where consumers determine their own level of involvement. I'm sure someone/group will inevitably corrupt Wikipedia, so some built-in mechanism to remove the corrupting entity needs to be incorporated. Beyond that, it's pretty accurate, though often too terse.
- Azerael, on 03/23/2008, -1/+44This guy reminds me of the crazies who made Conservapedia because Wikipedia didn't count the Bible as a credible source of information nor acknowledge America as the greatest, most infallible nation on Earth.
- Wronghead, on 03/23/2008, -8/+49Patrick is a corporate douchebag.
I don't mean to come across as inarticulate and crude, but there is not much else that can be added to this conversation and in the article they forgot to mention that the CEO of overstock.com is a large, benozzled plastic bag filled with vinegar and water. I thought it might be important. - lamiaconfitor, on 03/23/2008, -1/+35Whaa! Wikipedia wont let me put an obviously biased add as an entry!( They asked me not to put ads as entries?) Well, then... they are violating my 1st amendment rights! (wait, they are not the United States Government?) WARNING! everybody, wikipedia is biased against advertising!
- kazamx, on 03/23/2008, -1/+23OMG Conservapedia must be the funniest website ever. I thought it was a satire site, like the onion until someone pointed out it was real. Saying that when I first saw fox news with that Bill O'reily I thought it was satire too.
- norman619, on 03/23/2008, -1/+19Reply buttons are cool aren't they?
- kushin, on 03/23/2008, -1/+14maybe he should stop bitching about wikipedia and work on improving his store's reseller ratings.
- controltheweb, on 03/23/2008, -5/+17Facts as well as conjecture end up on on Wikipedia, and many topics are "guarded" by overzealous editors with an agenda, and plenty of time on their hands.
Definition of "overzealous:" A recent controversy was several editors banning new some excellent new contributors The editors later admitted that they were banning them because they were doing such a good job, and feared that it was a "ploy:" new contributors do the right things, gain respect, then subvert the system from within, so ban them before their good work gains too much respect. Paranoid much? - Azerael, on 03/23/2008, -0/+11Didn't you know? Bone cancer survivors are the best sources of truthiness there is! I cite them as sources on every Wiki edit I make. Those corrupt bastards keep reverting it, though. Their Xenuist bias makes my thetans burn.
- tbechtx, on 03/23/2008, -2/+12The CEO of Overstock.com is a whiney loser who blames everyone but himself for his pathetic excuse for a discount online retailer.
- lamiaconfitor, on 03/23/2008, -1/+10Damn, he survived bone cancer? Then his opinion must be right! or he could be an intelligent man trying to use a scandal for publicity. No one would be talking about overstock otherwise.
- funchords, on 03/23/2008, -0/+9I wonder why people assume that traditional encyclopedia publishers aren't subject to similar risks and influences?
- Azerael, on 03/23/2008, -0/+9Those edits of yours didn't happen to be along the lines of changing the age of the universe from 16 billion to 6000 years, did they?
- grimward, on 03/23/2008, -1/+10Good to see that wikipedia protects itself from evil corporations still :D
- Sverre, on 03/23/2008, -0/+8> There is no validation, no policing, and no accountability for what gets posted on Wikipedia.
That is simply not true. There are very good guidelines on how to cite references for your facts, what to do with un-cited material, how and when to revert others' changes and how to hold people accountable (i.e. temporarily or permanently ban them).
I find Wikipedia to be one of the most neutral sources you can find on most controversial topics, because people with different opinions all force each other to adhere to these guidelines. You don't get away with posting random conjectures, you really need to cite references for your facts. (This all works well in popular articles, where errors are spotted by many editors - it works less well in more obscure topics that few people read...) - smek2, on 03/23/2008, -1/+9***** Overstock.com. ***** these bastards.
- lamiaconfitor, on 03/23/2008, -1/+8I hate them so good.
- Aitese, on 03/23/2008, -0/+7My thoughts exactly, norman619
Also...most of us that agree with something but habe nothing else to add to the topic just hit one of them lil' thumbs over there. - an0nymous, on 03/23/2008, -1/+8dugg for "benozzled".
- MentalHazard, on 03/23/2008, -0/+6Maybe it's about time that overstock.net end their wikipedia obsession and move on to greener pastures with respect to advertising space: livejournal.
- jsams81, on 06/26/2009, -4/+10hey you overstock dumbasses, go to a friends house who doesn't abuse wikipedia then edit your article if its that big of a deal.
its a free service, they lay down the guidelines, if you dont like it dont use it. i for one think wikipedia is awesome an have found extremely useful. - Arcueid01, on 03/23/2008, -0/+6It sounds like Overstock's CEO is a little baby. I can't believe that he would defame the people of Wiki. There is no reason for that. Not everything is free speech and there is clearly defamatory towards the owners and editors of wiki. Sad sad sad.
- nonnald, on 03/23/2008, -2/+8no good college allows wikipedia as a source for papers.
- rbrodkin, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5As the CEO of a corporation, I have to say that I find Overstock's CEO to be completely unreasonable. Wikipedia has very clear guidelines about how the site may and may not be used. The fact that he mistakenly views Wikipedia as some sort of public property that his company has a right to is of no importance to Wikipedia or anyone else. In the same way that I'm sure Overstock would remove links that people could post to better prices, Wikipedia can control the content of their own site to maintain as balanced a view as possible.
- lamiaconfitor, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5They are not talking about someone putting up a valid post and getting P.O.'d that it was taken down unfairly.
- HonoredMule, on 03/23/2008, -1/+6I see it promoted in university as an excellent "research tool," which is exactly what it is. It is generally NOT an acceptable source for papers, but primarily because it's not a source in the first place.
You gotta remember, wikipedia is just a place to compile information, who's mantra is to maintain a neutral perspective. As such, failures to uphold that value are far more obvious than in places where an article's content will be imbued with the personality and meandering attention of a single author, then edited for clarity, direction, and purpose.
To the discerning mind, agendas in wikipedia articles are laid bare, and even the "corrupted" articles are usually a wealth of information and resources for deeper probing. In my mind, wikipedia is a stunning success in bringing information freely to the masses, and thus reducing the gap between the responsible common folk and social elite. - hyperspace68, on 03/23/2008, -2/+7Overstock. Dollar Store DimWits. The products are for *****. Their pricing is a rip-off. The "customer service" would be laughable if it were not so incompetent, rude, and just plain non-existent..
Now I understand why. The fish rots from the head. - grimward, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5Well as the company itself became an abusive entity, this was the only logical course wikipedia could take to defend the integrity of it's material.
- diggstown, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5Someone should be controlling Patrick Byrne's mind.
- draftingtableX, on 03/23/2008, -1/+6It's best for the amount it charges - it's not necessarily ever precise or accurate, and the quality may suffer from not being affiliated with an established and trusted place of research (universities or otherwise).
- grimward, on 03/23/2008, -0/+4"Their Xenuist bias makes my thetans burn" .. ooh you're splitting me sides man! DUGG! :D
- lamiaconfitor, on 03/23/2008, -0/+4If I keep spamming you from a specific server, you would block it too.
- PHiZ187, on 03/23/2008, -0/+4Wow, I as a customer won't be using Overstock.com going forward, and if I was an investor I would be concerned. The CEO seems to be acting pretty unhinged.
- deviationer, on 03/23/2008, -0/+4hahahahahhaahaha
- dburanen, on 03/23/2008, -1/+4So I'm guessing they think encyclopedia Brittanica is a form of mind control in addition to all other things we read.
Buried. While interesting to see what the overstock CEO thinks, let's not promote the FUD. - inactive, on 03/23/2008, -0/+3The main Wikipedia goal is to tell the world how good is your brand.
Wait, what? - Loornadune, on 03/23/2008, -1/+4I thought wikipedia saved each different edition of the page after people edited it, so that if it got really bad the community could just vote to revert it back to the old one.
- zaduma, on 03/23/2008, -1/+4BBBBBBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
- lamiaconfitor, on 03/23/2008, -3/+5Yes, that is true, but anyone who looking at wikipedia and does not realize that is a reality is a complete moron, and deserves a low grade on their poorly researched term paper.
- sekhui, on 03/23/2008, -1/+3see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrat ...
doesn't seem to be much dissent there. - ckedge, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2Reference or it didn't happen..
..or at least not exactly the way you say it did. Seriously, I'd love to read about this!
(COI - I'm an inclusionist and a very minor contributor) - xerosawyer, on 03/23/2008, -1/+3yeah wikipedia is at BEST a decent starting point (depending on how controversial your paper is). I only use wiki for fun, that's all.
- HonestAbe, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2This very article is an example of Wikipedia working the way it's supposed to. Someone tries to bias it with advertising, and it bans them.
- Aggaman, on 03/23/2008, -8/+10You have it wrong. Overstock and Byrne are the victims. You might want to look at Wikipedia's Arbcom proceedings for the past few weeks. The whole point of Byrne's complaint is that the Overstock article was being controlled by Gary Weiss, a business journalist critical of Overstock, and that this same Weiss had been misusing Wikipedia in order to promote his own views, resorting to among other things, sockpuppeting. Everyone who has reviewed the evidence knows that Weiss conducted a campaign against Overstock using the Wiki account "Mantanmoreland" (the evidence, gathered by other Wikipedians, is so overwhelming that only a moron could doubt it). Weiss was also using the "Mantanmoreland" account to control his own Wikipedia biography. The man is scum. If you don't believe me, google "Mantanmoreland Weiss sockpuppeting".
The only people who won't accept this are higher ups at Wikipedia because they know that they would have to apologize to Judd Bagley and Overstock if they admitted it. Mind you, all someone has to do to get their Wikipedia page changed is ***** Jimmy Wales, if the news is to be believed. - HonestAbe, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2More evidence that Wikipedia works.
Unless of course you're the CEO of Overstock.com, or the guy who started Conservapedia, or just hopelessly biased. - JRBobDobbs, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Since Patrick Byrne apparently isn't.
- veloscaper, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1it's easier to bitch about wikipedia.
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is