What is Digg?85 Comments
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+40It's funny, people are probably burying me for calling him a faceless coward, when his name is, in fact, FacelessCoward.
- Jennica, on 10/10/2007, -1/+38I fix a lot of minor stuff on wikipedia, like citations and spelling. Of course I have an account, which makes me really weird.
- facelesscoward, on 10/10/2007, -5/+39Editing stuff on Wikipedia is terribly intimidating. All I ever find myself doing is fixing little spelling and grammatical errors I come across.
- twrife, on 10/10/2007, -2/+34My sarcasm meter appears to be broken.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25This is bad for many reasons.
1) the articles could benefit from your input, you may think you aren't worthy but you are.
2) this leaves all the heavy lifting to a few editors
3) this still leaves the problem of the perspective being from a few frequent editors, which is not what wikipedia was supposed to be.
4) it continues to make the fequent editors feel more important than they really are. - LakeshoreBaby, on 10/10/2007, -7/+30I just add my comments to the discussion page and hope that the editors read them and consider my ideas. I don't feel I'm at a level to add things to the main pages yet.
- ChromaVita, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22And the entire Hot Pocket community is extremely grateful.
- mt066, on 10/10/2007, -0/+151. Edit page
2. Find that edit has been removed within 4 seconds (WTF that was fast??)
3. Find out who reverted edit and vandalize their profile page repeatedly.
4. Get banned from Wikipedia - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15It's not hard. You can start out by fixing obvious page problems (formatting, links to other pages), then start adding information that you can provide references for. It helps to have a large article open for edit in another tab, just so you can see how to format references, etc.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16This article only applies to you if you're running for Congress. For everyone else, just edit the page.
- stonedslacker, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Sad ... sadder ... saddest
- Aggaman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10She should award it in being a self absorbed skank. Same goes for most of the other admins.
Wikipedia used to be good, but now it's just another hierarchy with ***** in charge who live to push their own POV on their favourite articles. - Aggaman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10There is no cabal that controls everything. There is a group of users who tend to gang up on people who post things they don't like in certain subjects.
An entrenched hierarchy was the worst possible thing that could happen to Wikipedia. The second worst thing is Jimbo Wales being in charge of it. - jacobmiller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10The Wikipedia Tutorial is helpful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I haven't written any articles, but I have written a few one-paragraph stubs that have gotten longer.
- ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9edit this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10What's with this holier than thou crap coming from the wikipedia "admins". If you've edited, authored or otherwise contributed a ton of stuff to Wikipedia, good for you. You've made it a better place. But this looking down on people who are only willing/able to contribute a few edits here and there is crap and it's hurting the overall usefulness of wikipedia.
Yes sometimes things need to be discussed to make sure the right approach is taken, especially on controversial stuff. But too often this insistence on lots of talk before any action is solely for the self styled wikipedia elite to stroke each other's egos. - Izzie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5what is perceived as a cabal is simply hierarchy, wikipedia has a structure of power which is enough to allow the people in power to force their views on any individual. Last time I checked there was a real and deep dichotomy between the printed rules and the applied rules.
BTW I've been involved in many consensus discussion and only once or twice it ended with consensus, most of the time the whole "discussion" turned into a disguised "I called my friends to back up the point I want to push". in the end the whole discussion was discarded.
I found that the best (and practiced a lot) way is to be stealthy, hide your identity so you can't be traced when you edit something while on the other hand keep a spotless wikipedian profile for reputation. - geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -19/+24You're a faceless coward, what do you have to lose in editing the Wikipedia? If it's offensive or wrong or whatever it'll be reverted in 10 seconds.
- Monolith4, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11Any major changes i ever make (and in fields i actually know something about) invariably get edited back by someone else anyway, so ive pretty much given up on trying to add anything. The whole edit process has become way too bureaucratic. You can barely change a sentences syntax without spawning a page full of discussion.
- Jade10145, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4wikipedia edit-I suggest that the phrase "beware of information that does not sound credible/insane" be changed to "Beware of information that does not sound credible/sane"
- plbland, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"...beware of information that does not sound credible/insane"
If it's not insane - it's just not true!! - arpnuke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4God forbid people take pride in their work. It's a good feeling knowing you contributed to a project like wikipedia.
- ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I like this quote from one of the editors:
"Wikipedia is too often like the wild west, where the ability to shout the loudest, swing the hardest, and outlast the other fellow counts more than the quality and depth of one's sources."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raymond_arritt - utcursch, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFC/ADMIN
- Izzie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3the right way to fix any wikipedia article: fix it! as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
it is just a matter of time before someone else will fix your fix (sometimes a revert takes less a few seconds) - AndrewJC, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You can't just randomly put criticism. If you can cite your information with credible sources then it'll stay in there, and you can get the "fanboys" banned from editing that article if they continue to remove credible information.
Like any other "encyclopedia", WP has to be able to verify its information. - crossmr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3high ranking is a subjective term, please provide a citation from a reliable source or stop editorializing.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"...from a high ranking Wiki editor."
lol chillout - JudgeMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2yea, I had noticed a small problem with their plastic canvas article (a web site they linked to had been redesigned and the url didn't link properly anymore.) I sat there, staring at the wrong URL with the correct one in my clipboard. I just couldn't do it though.
In case anyone was wondering, I simply ended up soiling myself and crying in the corner. I feel I handled things rather well. - sciencebase, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Wikipedia is not a valid journalistic source for fact checking and many editors will tell their writers as much. Despite the best efforts of those who have built it, you simply cannot trust any given entry at any given time to be accurate. In some sense, that applies to the whole of the internet and even human knowledge in general, but with Wiki there are vandals and saboteurs, hidden agendas, and simple mistakes.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6How does this stop admins who insert subtly inaccurate information? What real recourse is there? I have seen it so many times when admins enter in crap info, then their other admin friend comes along and says "oh we should lock the page"....tripe..
- ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's mostly OK, but some articles are overrun by editors pushing their POV, masking it behind a "democratic" process of voting.
Then real facts are buried under made up BS supported by the majority. - Woknblues, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5I just "suggest" a change in the discussion page..It has worked each time I did (3)
- Jade10145, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I love wikipedia, I am a member, and sadly I visit almost everyday...I would say the bottom line is read wikipedia with a grain of salt, beware of information that does not sound credible/insane, look at the links that are avaliable within the article and follow them to see if the source is credible, don't make jack ass edits, it only ruins a very good thing.
- bIuebonics, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2it's a sham to post on wikipedia for the pride... o_O ... just do it for the sake of factual information.
- dannyapplesauce, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Dugg you up, because the jack ass above didn't reply so his dumbass comment could be seen
- Tenlow, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Reality has a liberal bias
- lobofanina, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That was before the Wikipedia admins became power mad.
- Izzie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35. make another sockpuppet to keep your wikipedian profile spotless
6. go back to 1. - dannyapplesauce, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The caps lock pissed me off and it was too long to be funny. Trying way too hard
- peterredding, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You must of heard of Chad Bryant
- bIuebonics, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1that's why you stick to math and most of the science. there's enough math on wikipedia even for me... :P
- ChasJensen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1When is this insufferable net nanny going to shut her stifle herself? Teaching everyone the rules of Wikipedia isn't the solution to Wikipedia defamation. Speaking of which, Durova is the last person to take advice from. She's one of Wikipedia's most abusive administrators. She defames people in the name of "investigations", without information, without due process, without recourse. Read the last to the comments here: http://searchengineland.com/070807-085103.php#comments
Also: "Is Wikipedia Corrupt?" examines if Durova is part of Wikipedia corruption. http://news.stepforth.com/blog/2007/08/is-wikipedia-corrupt.php - bIuebonics, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1damn, i edit stuff on wikipedia all the time and then flame people in discussion for being idiots and having it wrong.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2that was a bit _too_ much sarcasm
- MrSunshine, on 10/10/2007, -8/+9Wikipedia is anyway inaccurate and just a place to promote people and things. You add valid criticism to living persons, it gets reverted or deleted by fanboys so they keep their "innocent" reputation. You visit the article of a product that's just being (viral) marketed, you get to read an ad with only positive things and a list of the upcoming features it will have.
- DokCal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This article isn't about "seeing something wrong," it's about how best to handle wikivandalism of a subject you're personally connected with. If you're a private citizen with no connection to the subject and see something factually inaccurate, like, say, the boiling point of water at sea level is listed as 100 degrees Fahrenheit rather than 100 Celsius, then of course you should edit it. That's the whole point of a wiki.
- jaredforshey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My philosophy, if I have the source to back it up, is to just make the edit. If someone feels strongly about it, they'll revert it, hopefully with better sources than I had. I don't get into talk page arguments because most of my contributions are to smaller, less popular pages where I feel like I'm adding something that isn't likely to be done by anyone else in the near future. If I clean up and add some references to a page about a regional soft drink, I can feel pretty confident that it would have been a long time before anyone else noticed it needed an overhaul. If I clean up the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy entry, chances are it'll be reverted or changed within the hour; even if it was a much-needed revision (removing vandalism, etc) then someone else would have caught it and fixed it fifteen minutes later, minimizing the importance of my contribution.
- VictoryGin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2A sarcasm meter, oh that's a REALLY useful invention
-
Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is