What is Digg?Sponsored by FUNimation Enertainment
Watch the First 8 Minutes of Evangelion 1.01 Movie -- Anime view!
funimation.com - Available now on DVD. The rebuild of the ground breaking anime Neon Genesis Evangelion.
87 Comments
- zeldafan, on 10/12/2007, -11/+77Everyone knows Stephen Colbert is the real king of the wiki as well as everyone knows the elephant population has tripled in the last 10 years.
- eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -5/+64Quick someone give him a thousand dollars to write articles for Netscapedia.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+56I saw that line - "He lives at home" - and wondered who exactly doesn't live at home? Holy circular definition, batman!
- LordSkywalker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+54He should be commended, not bashed. Although I liked this line: "He lives at home and doesn't have a girlfriend."
- RichPowers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+46When I log onto Wiki I usually say, "hmm, I should write an article about such-and-such." But then I say ***** it and play Day of Defeat instead :)
Of course this reaffirms how a small minority of Wiki users provide a vast majority of the site's content. Thanks for the contributions, Simon Pulsifer - p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -2/+39This selfless guy lives and breaths the Wikipedia movement. An awesome story.
- dillonthomas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34I'd like to extend my gratitude towards Mr. Pacifier,
who is yet another kind citizen who does the jobs nobody else wants to do. - vagabond0101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25How do you remember your digg username?
- AICkieran, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31Who is the king of Wikipedia? Who cares!
Thats the great thing about wikipedia, Everyone can contribute, Who cares how much someone has EDITED things, I'd rather thank ALL the people that contributed. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Who knew working for free could be so rewarding?
- RyomaNagare, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23I just want to start an on-line petition to keep Mr. Simon Single forever, it wouldn't be very nice if he got laid and suddenly wikipedia would stop being updated on a regular basis.
sign the petition now - krewemaynard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Yeah, they just couldn't get through the story without the geek stereotype--lives at home, no girlfriend. Is there any other group they do this with? Do they profile college kids this way? "Lives in a dorm...gets out a lot...scores every night."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16should ~HAVE~
- richpav, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Heaven only knows how many term papers he has involuntarily ghost written.
- icecubed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:HOLIC
- kgool, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Wow, what a "hobby"!
- sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"I'm not paid for the work I do for Wikipedia. It doesn't matter to me that I do it on a voluntary basis. I enjoy it. It's important that people around the world have access to free, accurate and unbiased information. Wikipedia tries to do that, and it's a very honourable and admirable goal."
Jason Calacanis from Netscape wouldn't understand this. - miles01110, on 10/12/2007, -1/+820/80 rule of economics in action...except I guess this time it's more like .0001/99.9999 ...
- Mookeh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SimonP
- Flankk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I would pay for an encylopedia written by a monkey if it were revised by millions of experts.
- dreaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6And what makes you assume his entries aren't good?
Everyone has to agree that you may get wrong facts on Wikipedia, but the recent bashing against it lately seems a bit ridiculous. It's like other sources of information don't have any biased stuff or don't omit facts intentionally. Hell, just turn on your TV right now and you can see it.
You gotta like Wikipedia for what they've already done and keep trying to do, maybe even give it a little help. All I know is that hating a free, user-edited encyclopedia that has proven to be accurate and useful several times before, just because it's not perfect, is just as stupid as believing that everything you see on TV or read on books and magazines is the ultimate truth. - Wavey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Some Wikipedians prefer to keep their identities hidden and do not use their real names on the site. Mr. Pulsifer, for example, goes by SimonP. This username is to protect his identity from the abuse that can come from editing the site."
Oops, time for a new username!
But seriously, congrats and thanks to the guy for what I am assuming are many, many quality contributions. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Since Wikipedia operates on a "might is right" principle (who cares if your contributions are wrong, if you're prepared to revert to your view more times than others are prepared to get rid of your contribution, then your contribution becomes right), I'm hesitant to give this guy the same kind of saint worship that others seem happy to offer up. Quality of edit is much more important than quantity of edit.
- modpancake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Wow! That's a great idea, considering Wikipedia is a paid subscription service as it is. I'd rather have it ad-supported and free. Imagine if ANYONE could edit it!
- ziadoz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This guy deserves plenty of respect for what hes contributed to Wikipedia and the internet in general. I don't anyone who doesn't Wiki something these days if they want accurate and unbiased information.
- computerjoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6As an experienced Wikipedian, I have to say I've yet to come across him! I have 9000ish edits under my belt...
- Metasquares, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The "edit count determines your status on Wikipedia" thing rears its head again. It's great that he has 80,000 edits, but are they good edits? (I've seen SimonP around, and I'd say yes, in general). What about people editing a single article, such as "Peerage", thousands of times? Are the edits minor revisions or entirely new articles?
This blind emphasis on quantity is one of the reasons I stopped regularly contributing to Wikipedia. - darkjeffro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Oregon is Idaho's Portugal...Stephen reigns.
- manageMyRights, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yes perhaps he could be published in the most expensive and exclusive publications so only the wealthiest universities could afford a subscription to even read his work.
Seriously though, I think he likes participating in a dialog about these subjects that is open to everyone. - chandrasonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"78,000 entries edited and 2,000 to 3,000 new articles to his name"
- MiddleOfNowhere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"I would pay for an encylopedia written by a monkey if it were revised by millions of experts."
Yep; that pretty much sums it up. Constantly accumulating knowledge and iteratively improving articles is so much better than the written-in-stone-approach of the traditional encyclopedias. Sure, there may be vandalism and sloppiness, but in *most* cases, I’d prefer the million semi-experts to the self-proclaimed elite. - mikewhite314, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It would be nice if the article had a link to his user page, so we didn't have to search for it
- L0t3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3
"Who is the king of Wikipedia? Who cares!"
I appreciate him. Sure, LOTS of people have made significant contributions, but there is _nothing wrong_ with celebrating people who add something of significant value to the world. In my estimation, he qualifies. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10So when is Netscape going to offer him $1000.00 to move over to them.
- chrislerch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Where are you located? Every public library I know of provides access to EBSCO, which should meet most needs, at least up to the Graduate School level. Even most high schools have EBSCO and many, many other subscription databases available.
- jeriqo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How old is wikipedia ?
Assuming it's 10 years old (which I doubt), that's an average of ~22 articles per day.
Just ***** not human except he edits typos, punctuation etc. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@vagabond0101
Where did he say anything about adultery? I think your parents are some of the hillbillies he mentioned. - UnderWurlde, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Pretty impressive though... Hats off to my Canuck comrade!
- opticwind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, I'm just glad no one would consider paying ..say, $1000 a month...this guy to switch over to their site.
- MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2I'd do it if I was smarter.
Actually, I've made a list of things that I've searched for on Wikipedia but haven't found, as well as dated articles that I'd like to create and add to, but I have yet to do so. - Shinta, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Simon Pulsifer, Wikipedia's BloodJunkie
- NoSuchAgency, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9It's sad that he's not getting laid. But frankly his obsession takes up too much time for any partner to reasonably tolerate. Even if he took 5 hours a week off from wiki'ing to go on a few dates, though...
Hopefully he will someday procreate - there's gotta be some prime genetic material there. The species needs smarter, and the hillbillies are far outproducing the bright ones (everywhere). - fingiecrookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He changes it every week for security reasons.
- MrVercetti, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wikipedia was started January 15, 2001.
- chrislerch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Of course you can get many fine (and expensive) journal articles above and beyond what's freely available, and I wish they were all free. Those subscription services are pricing themselves out of existence and I think you'll see them change their business model in a few years. But the point is that the free ones are superior to Wikipedia because they are vetted and peer reviewed and, most importantly, unable to be altered by a 13 year old on her dad's PC.
- chrislerch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"I don't (sic) anyone who doesn't Wiki something these days if they want accurate and unbiased information. "
You're kidding, right? Sarcasm? Did I miss something? - napkinback, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But it does beg the question of when is enough, enough? While he has an impressive degree, there is only so much you can reasonably contribute. He can't be an expert on 80,000 topics. You're right to question anyone's ability to contribute quality articles. Anyone who opposes the questioning of a contributors articles isn't holding true to Wikipedia's core belief; it's a democratic encyclopedia. Democracy demands that we question the source of our information, including an OCD editor.
Kudos to Mr. Pulsifer for finding something he loves. Unfortunately, until Wikipedia finds a way to allow known, proven experts (they do exist, you know) to validate certain topics and over-rule persistent editors, the respect of a large segment of the world will be lacking. - Flankk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Are it?
- kilps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The article they mention is found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makuria
- mrpink.137, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2By Jason Calacanis' reasoning, that man deserves a pay check!
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is