What is Digg?52 Comments
- arcman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3wikipedia wasn't meant to be a credited source of information, it was never designed to be that, so don't use it as a basis for writing your thesis, and don't discredit it because you can't use it as such. It's meant as a communal portal of information, and it's pretty damn amazing at what it does.
- shakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"the number of errors/volume of misinformation *can* grow exponentially" (emphasis mine)
Really, this is a theory designed to discredit Wikipedia before anything bad even happens. Sure, in theory, Wikipedia could end up as much of a credible source as Uncyclopedia, but it hasn't happened yet and it may never happen. As much as the anti-Wikipedia people would like to see it fail spectacularly, right now it's doing a wonderful job at cataloging the world's information in ways that far outpace those of its conventional competitors. Wikipedia also contains a far greater breadth of topics, making it a much more useful general reference than Britannica. - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was joking with a friend just yesterday about how we may see traditional book publishers (specifically school text books) begin whining to Congress for some kind of protectionist laws. Wikipedia has a LOT of information, and it's quite detailed in many cases. One may soon wonder, "If all this information is available for free, and is no less accurate overall than the non-free material, wby not save ourselves a boatload of money?"
I was looking up the meaning of the greek letter Sigma, and was greeted with what could have easily been a short chapter in a text book, or at minimum, a detailed subsection. Amazing.
Tbe benefit of Wikipedia is that it's always current, very dynamic, self-correcting, and there's nobody standing over you with arcane licensing BS. Granted, its strength is also its drawback, but the downside has yet to make itself apparent in any significant way. - Jarrod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hating Wikipedia makes no sense to me. What part do you dislike? The fact that it is free? The fact that its articles are arrived at by genuine research and debate rather than one person somewhere distorting the facts to his own prejudices?
I honestly think it is one of the great inventions of the 20th century. - pcgeek101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I love wikipedia
- AuAndCs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0this article sent me on a wikitangent
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm sure if you try catalog the mistakes on Wikipedia, you'll have a list with over 5000 entries.
- photophunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Nice post digg, you are awesome as well as your content.
- barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wow people against wikipedia, the idiots never cease to amaze me.
- motionblur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Encyclopedia Britannica gets pnwed.
- csb138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"If you're not in Wikipedia, you're nobody." -me
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you had a group of people against things there would soon be a group of people against that.
- synystar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Conversely, the risk remains that with enough ill-informed or ill-intentioned readers, the number of errors can just as easily grow, unlike a static paper reference such as Britannica."
They left anastrophe's comment in? Just made it more clear and readable? Brilliant. I love Wikipedia. =) - Slavakion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hope you don't "contribute" to Wikipedia with that kind of grammar...
- modeps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Digg is a technology news website that combines social bookmarking, blogging, RSS, and non-hierarchical editorial control. With digg, users submit stories for review, but rather than allow an editor to decide which stories go on the homepage, the users do.
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why does digg insist on having a "links" category?
- arcman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"perhaps they should consider changing the name then, which suggests authoritive reference, based on the 'previous' meaning of 'encyclopedia'."
I suppose they could. To do so would be purly acedemic, though. Those that know what a wiki is, or bother to look it up, should know they couldn't cite it in serious peer review. Those that don't take that time are the same people that don't bother to look at snopes before they forward the emails that supposedly donate a nickel to themselves every time you append your personal info and email address. - exoendo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1that's all fine and nice, but I'm sure britannica can find just as many errors and more if with wikipedia.
- anastrophe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"wikipedia wasn't meant to be a credited source of information".
perhaps they should consider changing the name then, which suggests authoritive reference, based on the "previous" meaning of "encyclopedia". - barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"and after a week, these 5000 corrected entries are reverted to become incorrect entries."
and then corrected again, yes we could go over this again and again, but as 5blocksfree said :
"Granted, its strength is also its drawback, but the downside has yet to make itself apparent in any significant way." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Im sure if you showed those mistakes to the maintainers you would have over 5000 corrected entries."
and after a week, these 5000 corrected entries are reverted to become incorrect entries. - GiggleStick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And if I'm a powerful moron, I can press the submit the same thing twice!
- Hazza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wonder what would happen if it went the other way around and britannica started correcting wikipedia.
That would be interesting. - snyy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I hope you don't "contribute" to Wikipedia with that kind of grammar..."
No I don't. Sorry about the bad grammar. - arcman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"And yet you make this statement in the comments section of an article which claims that Wikipedia is more credible than Encyclopedia Britannica."
On this article at least, I think the issue is accuracy and not necessarily credibility. The way it is, it's possible for it to be more accurate, but the fact that it can be in flux at any time from any joe-blow pretty much kills it for academia. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And if I'm a powerful wikipedia moderator, and i can deliberatly spread misinformation and prevent anyone from correcting it.
- barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I'm sure if you try catalog the mistakes on Wikipedia, you'll have a list with over 5000 entries."
Im sure if you showed those mistakes to the maintainers you would have over 5000 corrected entries. - dbrodbeck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A student using any encyclopedia as a source for an essay in one of my classes would receive a rather low grade.
Secondary sources = low marks. - psyonide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"wikipedia wasn't meant to be a credited source of information, it was never designed to be that,"
And yet you make this statement in the comments section of an article which claims that Wikipedia is more credible than Encyclopedia Britannica. - anastrophe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I suppose they could. To do so would be purly acedemic, though. Those that know what a wiki is, or bother to look it up, should know they couldn't cite it in serious peer review. Those that don't take that time are the same people that don't bother to look at snopes before they forward the emails that supposedly donate a nickel to themselves every time you append your personal info and email address."
i guess you can add the Ninth Circuit court to that latter list. Which, of course, isn't far off the mark for those bozos. - dominiccarr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I like Wikipedia, every article i have ever looked up has had correct information (i checked).
- psyonide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wikipedia is an excellent service, however, the blind zealotry of some of its users is quite disturbing.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Granted, its strength is also its drawback, but the downside has yet to make itself apparent in any significant way."
not apperent, but already showing up in artcles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_warez_groups - DardanAeneas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@anastrophe - we've already corrected your foolish Wiki edit. @others - enjoy.
- barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I dont see how your example is relevant, it's simply a list of warez groups.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"And if I'm a powerful moron, I can press the submit the same thing twice!"
then i'll ban you. - anastrophe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"wikiwackos" is certainly appropriate, considering the tone of the responses already generated. who said i hate wikipedia? i think wikipedia is absolutely fabulous. Unlike some, I don't let my 'unbridled enthusiasm' get the best of my objectivity.
it's the lack of objectivity of the wikifanboys (is that better?) that leads my skepticism.
Oh, and regarding the comment that my comments are "a theory designed to discredit Wikipedia" - all I can say is, QED. shakin, reread your own comments. If you don't see the huge blindspots evident, well, I wish the best of luck with the real world. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0yes, wikipedia mods can ban.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_warez_groups
Actully it's not easy to correct mistakes in wikipedia. If you correct it, someone else will revert it. So you'll end up fighting over the correctness of the correction for 1-2 months. - anastrophe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1ah, more wikipedia propaganda. i've already corrected the cited entry, which failed to enumerate the downside of their 'project'.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0wikipedia = encyclopedia for joe blows.
> - SirBriggs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0::Waddle Waddle waddle:: FACE!
- skyhighrockets, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1STOP LINKING TO WIKI!
- ripclanbuz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"wikiwackos" eh? yeah, that name-calling really helps your case... oh, what I meant to say was, make you appear to be the wacko.
If you see info that is inaccurate, uh, login and correct it maybe?? sheesh. - snyy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0ill never wikipedia
It can be edited to have wrong info to easy
I think there a group devoted to changeling dates and locations and time on entries to wrong time dates places so such - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0And if I'm a powerful wikipedia moderator, i can deliberatly spread misinformation and prevent anyone from correcting it.
- anastrophe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2oh - since the wikiwackos will likely object to an objective comment about their "project", here's what i added:
"Conversely, given a sufficient number of ill-informed or ill-intentioned readers, the number of errors/volume of misinformation can grow exponentially, unlike 'hard' published reference such as Britannica." - Tom_Riddle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I AM A WIKIPEDIA WHORE. nuff said.
- Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0This changes nothing.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0link to wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_warez_groups -
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is