What is Digg?60 Comments
- VaKo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25I've always thought that Wikipedia was more like the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy than a real encyclopedia. It may not be the best, most accurate encyclopedia out there but 90% of the time it's pretty good and the price is defiantly right.
- WayneGoode, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20That would be http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
- NeilM, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20This was a stupid read. The Wikipedia is an excellent source of useful information and when the factual accuracy of a submitted article is disputed, they clearly illustrate at the top of the page. The common visitor does not notice any arguments becuase, well, I never have! Just use the Wikipedia in a non-vandalizing / non-arguing way and we're all good.
- theblackgecko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I'm noticing similarities between Wikipedia and Digg.
- EnricoFermi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19yeah gecko I agree with you one that. People are starting to make the same critisisms about digg. For some reason some people have a problem with user submitted content.
They argue about the accuracy and validity of the submissions but the bottom line is nobody goes to digg or wikipedia for information that has to be 100% accurate. The users on these site know what they're doing, and most know how to sniff out *****, so why not just let us be, if you don't like it don't logon. - funkpucker, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22All you ***** need to stop criticizing people trying to create meaningful, life changing products. Wikipedia is an enormously wonderful product. Virtually all the articles I have ever read on Wikipedia have tremendously more pertinent information than any other online or print publication. Not to mention, information is clearly displayed in a perfectly organized and integrated fashion, freely available for anyone in any language in the world. Granted, disputes occur on a frequent basis, but it is almost entirely transparent to the user.
Working towards an agreed upon consensus about history is extremely important if we are to ever work together as a society to make life better. Stop your bitching and make something worthwhile. Make something... anything... stop bitching! - kankerfist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17I use wikipedia for extremely non-controversial articles for help with school. Wikipedia has more information on the reactions I have to study in chemical engineering than both of my chem e books combined. Also, scientists have a huge numerical advantage over religious fundamentalists on wikipedia for some reason, so you don't have to worry about incorrect facts in articles regarding controversial scientific articles, like biology and geology. Some people hate wikipedia for some reason, but I have found it to be a really good resource for math and chemistry information.
- bradspry, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16No way. The king is Google's 20 archive of Usenet. Wikipedia is still an infant compared to that. Arguing about whether OS/2 or Windows formats a floppy better... now that's a stupid argument!
Link: http://tinyurl.com/hrbfs - D4r7h3v1l, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Not only is it a wholly remarkable book, it is also a highly successful one - more popular than the Celestial Home Care Omnibus, better selling than Fifty More Things to do in Zero Gravity, and more controversial than Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes and Who is this God Person Anyway?
In many of the more relaxed civilizations on the Outer Eastern Rim of the Galaxy, the Hitch Hiker's Guide has already supplanted the great Encyclopedia Galactica as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for though it has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two important respects.
First, it is slightly cheaper; and secondly it has the words Don't Panic inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover. - ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11check out the unencylcopedia article on wikipedia for a great list of the stupidest arguments ever on wikipedia.
- D4r7h3v1l, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10No, it was from the book (originally). I have it right in front of me. It was in both, but possibly not word for word. That text, however, was directly from the Book.
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Isn't the _whole internet_ really just one big argument?
That's what it was built for, right? Arguments and porn? - oboreruhito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Dude stop arguing
- PercyKittenz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The author's preemptive response:
"Wikipedia, the Serious Version
Early on in my Brunching days, I learned to live with the fact that some people consider humor to be a personal attack on the things they love, and by extension on themselves. Over and over I'd write an article about something I actually liked, for instance Star Wars or Dungeons and Dragons, and I'd get all sorts of mail based on the assumption that because I made fun of it, I must hate it. To the contrary, while I do sometimes mock stuff I don't like, most of the time I can't be bothered to do the research. That's why, for instance, I never wrote an article about Britney Spears. I never got into Britney Spears or her music, so I never really knew enough about her to go a good job of making fun of her.
Wikipedia is kind of like that. I can't say I adore it, but I certainly find it interesting enough to have read a lot about it, and that's why I have enough packed into my brain to get a humor column out of it."
http://slumbering.lungfish.com/2006/04/wikipedia_the_serious_version.html#more - rideagain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9That's just Wired being jealous.
- boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8It's not Wikipedia, either. Look at the URL: This is a Wired article.
- smhill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I agree. The arguments are all on lame or subjective topics. It is full of great information.
- fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I hope you realized this is a joke (though the "quantum significance flux" part is dead ***** accurate)
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I keep seeing all these articles bitching about how crappy Wikipedia is, but every time I go there the articles are clear, concise and accurate. If this jackass thinks it's such a bad site, maybe he should ask for his money back.
- ravithepimp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9A wise man once said to me:
Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the special Olympics; even if you win, you're still a retard. - xAXISx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wrong: http://www.slashdot.org is.
- anagami, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4"You must not veer out much from scientific-type articles. If you think the rest is even remotely accurate, then you either don't know much yourself, or your biases happen to agree with those of whoever wrote the stuff. If you find that the writing on that website qualifies as either clear or concise, I'd really hate to see something written by you."
I disagree. Wikipedia is a useful website to start searching for concise, organized information. Of course it's not accurate enough for a professional thesis, but it's one of the best places to start a search. - thavok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Obviously OS/2
- Zanturaeon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This was hilarious. I love Wikipedia, and I loved this op-ed.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hell, people do that in the English version.
- ploink, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5It's the best open source encyclopedia we have.
Anyone want to have a go at making a better one? - ploink, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4By open source, I mean the source is open for anyone to edit.
- jas8522, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hahaha, that's the first thing that came to mind when I read the title!
- oboreruhito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Yeah, the Gundam articles _are_ all very spot-on.
- lysander, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Lore's writeups are always excellent.
- EnricoFermi, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8amen
- CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Disagree with assessment. Has the author actually looked at Yahoo "discussions"?
- kazsymonds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Internet is for porn and all your base are belong to me.
- merlyn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wikipedia is slashdot's book report.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Dammit, I read the first part and modded it down before I read just above that it was a joke. Please forgive me. All, please add +2 to the parent's rating. As a side note, we need a way to cancel our diggs of comments.
- Pile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The mainstream media is always looking to bash Wiki because Wiki is the main competition for all other mainstream media. When you hear something in the news, you know that you can get more of the story, in more detail, with all sides on Wikipedia. Other media represent primarily the point of view that generates the most profit. Since Wiki is non-profit, they're like the Consumer Reports of general information, and they perform a valuable service. This explains why you're not likely to see any mercinary publication write anything positive about this wonderful service.
http://BSAlert.com/ - richIsBored, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I've always been of the opinion that Wikipedia is an opportunity for everyone to create a collective knowledge base where subject material can be academic or otherwise. All topics are fair game. In that sense, it isn't an encyclopedia but yet it offers a lot of the same material.
Not all articles cover subjects that are concrete and in that sense, debate is natural as it's a necessary step in order to form a conclusion.
Sometimes I wonder where the root of all this anti-wikipedia nonsense comes from. It seems like every other day there's another article written with no purpose other than to put Wikipedia's credibility in question.
That's not to say that people shouldn't question the credibility of any given article on the site. They should. But why is everyone an armchair editor when we all have access to do actual edits? Maybe it's because it takes less effort to bitch about Wikipedia's shortcomings than to fix them.
IMHO, you only get out what you put in. If you can't be bothered to make contributions, then your complaints don't have any merit. It's like bitching at a clock for not keeping time when all you have to do is plug it in. - hags2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Absolutely. I think some of the people commenting on this story are unfamiliar with Lore's writing style and that it's HUMOR
Ah, if only we could all have a sense of it :-) - Grumbleberries, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I found that description to be gut-bustingly funny.
- klept, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The author of the wiki article in Wired sent me about six emails a few days ago explaining that he is a humorist, not a journalist. And basically it took him 6 emails to tell me that if I didnt understand he was writing humor, well dude that was my fault.
Some of this "humorist's" fans get very excited if you dont understand him and will throw out such inciteful names as idiot. But dont let that worry you. I have a feeling his fans are a few overaged, hasbeen geeks living in their parent's basement.
The fact that he makes a post on digg trying to explain his humor shows that his whole "comedy", "satire", whatever, about wiki bombed.
PerycyKittenz???? Gez man is that your digg handle? Oh I forgot, you're suppose to be a humorist. A "well known internet humorist'. Yeah sure. Well gee, it looks like a lot of people that wrote to digg and wired didnt know that. But then as you told me in our emails, you are playing a joke on us, the people that dont find you funny. Is everyone out there laughing? No? Well just remmember that's your fault. Not this "well known internet humorist".
And that is the beauty of the internet folks.You can give your opinion. The media is no longer controlled by a few. - exipolar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2who is an individual to decide what is qualified material on a SOCIAL NEWS SITE!
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That's "roze," not rose
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I prefer http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Wikipedia
- cpthorfe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I believe that Wikipedia is a great resource, just not the resource it originally set out to be. Wikipedia may not be a great, reliable traditional encyclopedia, but when it comes to geek culture, pop culture to some extent, and internet memes, it's an invaluable resource.
IMO - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3PowerCow, I take it you missed the recent stories about that Nature advertorial being a load of ***** that they more or less made up (literally). You're gonna have to find something else to "prove" that water isn't wet, I mean, that Wikipedia is worth its weight in moldy diarrhea.
- gailwin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i love wiki...
especially chinese wiki where you can write random ***** in english - warnergt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wikipedia definitely has problems especially
when it come to left/right debates:
http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2006/04/wikipedia_untru.html - lastingdamage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0They are all just copying the THE original Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/ - aThing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1These are actually very useful sometimes, for example debunking common myths.
- skatingrox, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5"defiantly right", eh?
Oh by the way D4r7h3v1l, you were quoting from the movie, not the book. -
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is