What is Digg?61 Comments
- pikpikcarrotmon, on 11/10/2007, -1/+66The problem is that a lot of people don't understand how Wikipedia works, and those people are usually louder than the ones who edit the site. Last year I got a three hour lecture from our school's librarian about how Wikipedia is never to be used as a source for information because people can just edit the pages without even making an account. I interrupted and explained that people are actually watching the site and when anything is added, it's revised or removed rather quickly. To which she replied, "but there's an edit button on the page. I can just edit anything I want into it."
Sad thing is most adults I know over the age of 45 hold the exact same sentiment.
In a similar path of illogic, they'll also claim that anything edited into Wikipedia is the fault of the site itself because again, they don't understand the concept of an open-edit encyclopedia.
Basically, this lawsuit won't do squat to help the site because there are millions, if not billions, of other idiots out there. - marvinmatthew, on 11/05/2007, -2/+33If I might add another point to what you said....
Most adults don't seem to realize that Wikipedia's (decent) articles also site their sources.
You're spot on in your complaint of how adults view Wikipedia. - zornme, on 11/06/2007, -0/+29[citation needed]
- footodors, on 11/06/2007, -2/+23I like wikipedia and find it extremely reliable.
- Comatose51, on 11/05/2007, -1/+17Sad thing is that they're thinking "Oh these kids, they're so naive" all the while not realizing how naive they are for trusting published sources that aren't peered reviewed such as most printed encyclopedias. At least with the wikipedia I can look at the history of the edits. It's something of a halfway point between printed encyclopedia and research journals. Whereas printed encyclopedias have no peer review but also limits edits, they don't expect the reader critically evaluate the information, which you have to with Wikipedia to an extend. With research journals, the critical evaluation is expected of its readers.
- GeckoSlayer, on 11/04/2007, -0/+14This is a great precedent, though. Now when they come under fire for user-based content that is.. questionable.. they can just bring up this.
- pikpikcarrotmon, on 11/04/2007, -1/+12"The Arc de Triomphe is rivaled only by the Eiffel Tower for the position of most recognizable landmark in France."
- LimeParrot, on 11/04/2007, -0/+11You mean cite*? Yes, good articles on wikipedia do cite their articles. This is my main use of wikipedia. As a starting point to use its citations to find more information.
- saifatlast, on 11/06/2007, -0/+11Of course it's landmark. It establishes the precedent that the Wikimedia Foundation isn't responsible for its content, which makes it much harder to sue wikipedia for slander etc. if someone posts some bad information.
- Comatose51, on 11/05/2007, -0/+10That's actually the reverse of my experience. The Comp Sci articles on Wikipedia are quite accurate and less prone to tampering and vandalism than other more general/popular articles.
- haydesigner, on 11/05/2007, -4/+14Dugg down, reported and blocked.
Congratulations on letting *everyone* know what an idiot you are. - 0xFEEDFACE, on 11/04/2007, -0/+8And yet I hear "American" and "*****" in the same sentence all the time. Take this sentence for example:
I'm not sure you're American, but I'm positive you're an *****. - saifatlast, on 11/05/2007, -1/+9I love wikipedia, but it really should not be used as a primary source. The more specialized my knowledge becomes, the more things I find incorrect or incomplete on Wikipedia. Of course, where I can, I fix it, but there's still lots of problems with it.
- koweja, on 11/04/2007, -0/+7This is very good news, even if you don't live in France. One of the biggest problems of technology is that the legal systems tend not to understand the finer workings of technology. They tend to find the closest non-technological equivalent and treat it just like it. So, people could just as easily said "Wikipedia is like an encyclopedia. The publishers of an encyclopedia are responsible for the content so the publishers of Wikipedia are responsible for it's content." Granted, this is more often a problem with legislatures as you can argue and prove your point with the judiciary, however it's still good news for everyone.
- koweja, on 11/05/2007, -0/+6Are my parents responsible for everything I do?
If so, it's killing time. - fantasticFlan, on 11/05/2007, -2/+8Did he assemble the monster himself?
- smacksaw, on 11/05/2007, -0/+6I think it's a looped tape that goes something like "founding fathers"..."follow the constitution"..."read the 9/11 commission report"...and lastly he thinks "this is in France and has nothing do with us."
- LimeParrot, on 11/05/2007, -0/+5Are you kidding me? I just used Wikipedia to find information about the DLVO theory of colloids and suspensions. Not exactly the children's favourite pastime...
- capiCrimm, on 11/04/2007, -0/+5France was *very* important part of WWII. French was the royal language for quite a while, because France under Napoleon nearly conquered Europe. Plus, if your American like me, France was our biggest alley during the revolution. Hell a Frenchman wrote the best book on *American Democracy*, and they even had a revolution of their own. This is all off the top of my head.
- WikiEasy, on 11/05/2007, -5/+10Of course, the obligatory, "link this to Americans somehow and blame them instead" response. Lame.
- saifatlast, on 11/05/2007, -0/+5There's also the fact that since wikipedia is a bit of computer-geek phenomenon, the articles on that CS are very good. I'm doing aerospace engineering, and have found that many of the articles are awful, incomplete or even nonexistent.
- Comatose51, on 11/05/2007, -0/+4I wasn't claiming the Wikipedia gives you critical reading skills but that it is required more so than traditional encyclopedias, thus making it a midway point between traditional encyclopedias and research journals. My point is that simply requiring critical evaluation of what you read doesn't make it a worse source of information because research journals have done the same for a long time now and are often highly reliable. The manual for medicine example is more akin to research journals than traditional encyclopedias because the readers are experts in their field and will critically evaluate the information.
- smacksaw, on 11/05/2007, -0/+4It's not FARK.com, it's Digg.com
Boobies
Jackass - johnkelsen, on 11/04/2007, -1/+5It establishes a landmark in France. Do you think Courts in other jurisdictions must follow this?
- hmunkey, on 11/04/2007, -0/+3This isn't a stupid webforum.
- smacksaw, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3Good point. A peer review doesn't make something 100% factual truth, either. It's not as if there aren't peer groups of say...scientists who are getting grants from political sources who are depending on their investment yielding a certain result.
- inactive, on 11/05/2007, -2/+5There is more censorship and hidden agenda involved for these critically assessed and peer reviewed articles. Not to forget the underlying snobbery about the source of knowledge being an elite few. Wikipedia gives all its sources and is the starting point for any research, not the be all and end all of it. Peer reviewed stuff involve a lot of propaganda ( remember how atlases and encyclopedias used to draw UK bigger than it is to promote the colonial image?) and with Wikipedia, you can at least use WikiScanner to trace who's doing the editing. And so you find that the polished image of countries with tyrannical regimes edited on wiki by PR firms and the NRA brushed up Wiki page of some Republican guy who used to be in KKK. You'd never find out hidden motives like that in "proper" sources of info.
- bobakanush, on 11/04/2007, -0/+3French couple seeks 100,000$, denied from even going to court, American seeks millions for a pair of pants, somehow goes to court.
- u8eR, on 11/05/2007, -8/+11Not even close to being considered "landmark."
- Uranium118, on 11/04/2007, -0/+3So it's the same thing for torrents sites right?
- RedHairedMan, on 11/04/2007, -0/+2Just because a website says your gay, doesn't necessarily mean it's true. So if you didn't want to be outed over the web, here's a notion: don't CONFIRM IT.
- a0me, on 11/04/2007, -0/+2I use Wikipedia all the time and think it's an incredible source for information. My previous comment was a reply to marvin's comment "You're spot on in your complaint of how adults view Wikipedia." wondering on what he meant by "adults not understanding Wikipedia" since Wikipedia is mostly operated and edited by adults.
- marvinmatthew, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2I am an American. Wikipedia's servers are hosted in America. A judgment against them in America would be much worse than a judgment against them in France.
- LimeParrot, on 11/04/2007, -0/+2Well known and reputable published sources (e.g. the Marck manual for medicine) are based on scientific journal entries / studies which ARE peer reviewed and critically assessed before being included. And critical reading is a skill that you have to acquire yourself (reading Wikipedia doesn't 'give' you critical reading). Wikipedia is great and has its own advantages, but would you use a Wikipedia article to plan a surgical procedure? No.
- CLShortFuse, on 11/04/2007, -1/+3that was the angle the submitter was going for. hence the "landmark" word. P2P networks and sites
- smacksaw, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1You sort of stole my thunder there, but I would finish what you didn't say, is that when you check citations, obviously if they are from independent, unverifiable sources, fansites, etc it doesn't matter. I mean, it could link to anything, it's the veracity of what it's linked to that matters. If I was really going to stake myself on something Wikipedia had, I think it's prudent to verify citations as being sourced by a scientific study or actual news reporting.
- 4Paws, on 11/04/2007, -1/+2Long live Wikipedia!
- babar77, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1Well for scientific journals, a peer review is a fundamental part of the scientific process: repeatability. In other words, if you can get your peers to perform the same experiment and yield the same results, there's a greater chance you didn't mess something stupid up somewhere. Many scientists looking for glory have been outed by this process, the most famous of those were the guys that "discovered" cold fusion. No one else could repeat what they claimed, and when pressed, they confessed they made it all up.
As far as knowledge being held by the snobbish few, I have no idea where you get off making this comment. Apparently, you haven't walked through a library in a long time. Most libraries I know of either carry the monthly publications to most academic journals, or at least belong to a network where they can obtain a copy. Otherwise, you can join whatever society you would like to see (for a fee, someone has to pay to keep everything flowing) and get a monthly delivery of their journals and usually unfettered access to their archives. The nice thing about the library, is that your taxes have already paid for the subscriptions and you can see it for free.
And by having a peer review, usually your peers belong to a multitude of organizations, some of which have no business or political interest in your work, so it has a greater chance of being unbiased. It's the politicians and businessmen that do all the censoring/misquoting of scientific data. Trust me, if you were to actually go digging in most academic journals, you would find all sorts of interesting information, and actually understand the studies better than receiving your "executive summary" from an ignorant/biased source such as the media as they like to reduce 100pg complicated studies to a sound bite. - footodors, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1that's why they hate us with a passion today, I guess! Strong anti-americanism there, so they can kiss my ass!
- saifatlast, on 11/04/2007, -1/+2No, I also never said it's a landmark case worldwide. We call US cases landmark all the time, are you somehow under the impression that they are followed in other jurisdictions?
- gaijintendo, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1However it is not the conclusion a great deal of judges would come to. I am very impressed by Judge Emmanuel Binoche actually seeming to have grasped the concept of wikipedia.
I don't fully understand why they emailed wikipedia, then took it to court when they could have edited the pages concerned... - babar77, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1I would argue Wikipedia is peer reviewed both directly an indirectly. Directly by the thousands of people policing the site for proper viewpoint, formatting, sourcing, etc. Indirectly by the sources Wikipedia often cites. If the sources are peer reviewed, then wikipedia - to an extent - is also peer reviewed.
- NoSalt, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1So he got "outed" ... BFD!!!
- aazn, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1What?
- johnkelsen, on 11/05/2007, -1/+1Did you even read my comment? I thought it was simple, but I guess you are too.
In your response you seem to imply that I don't believe the decision is a landmark. Instead of repeating myself, why don't you check my first sentence. Next, you ask me whether I believe decisions of US courts are followed by courts in other jurisdictions. The clear message in my comment is that a decision of this type in one jurisdiction is not binding on another. If you can't find that message in my comment here's a hint: check the 2nd sentence. - Thegnofbreland, on 11/05/2007, -0/+0I don't understand why people still believe everything they read on the Internet. I remember in middle school everything on the Internet had to be second guessed, and it still needs to be today. However, with Wikipedia references can be listed and used if the reader has any doubts about what they just read.
- footodors, on 11/04/2007, -1/+1I know the message stings but remember; Don't shoot the messenger!
- pronabol, on 11/04/2007, -1/+1It's France, of cause they won.
- Khantusion, on 11/04/2007, -1/+1Reading comprehension homey... reading comprehension. That's not what he was saying at all. If anything, his point was the exact opposite of how you interpreted it. Grats
- appleswitch, on 11/05/2007, -1/+1The difference is that _some_ adults understand and contribute to wikipedia, but _most_ kids use and understand it.
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 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