| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| Instapundit Challenges Wikipedia Credibility |
| 2005-01-07 |
 WIKIPEDIA, and its trustworthiness, has become a topic of considerable discussion. This entry on InstaPundit does little to inspire confidence. Okay, the picture with the "I had an abortion" t-shirt and the reference to blended puppies might be humor (is Wikipedia a Frank J. production now?) but InstaPundit was never hosted on UT servers, and I don't know where anyone would get that idea. |
| Posted by:Mrs. Davis |
| #13 "Historical Novel"? The typecast bomb is inbound! LOL and heh! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-01-07 5:36:04 PM |
| #12 Yesterday I wikied a book I just read and spent a couple of hours linking around in there. The information provided on this historical novel was quite interesting. BTW, I highly recommend "The Egyptian", by Mika Häkkinen. Many eerie parallels to the politics of today, and a darn good read. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-01-07 3:17:41 PM |
| #11 âWould anyone cite any Wiki for any purpose in the real world?â Wiki works well for science topics. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5032 2005-01-07 12:24:25 PM |
| #10 .com> A bird can't pull a plow, and quarantining an entry "until vetted by authoritative sources" goes against the core of the Wiki concept. The minus is as you say - that any jackass can edit Wikipedia. The plus is that any jackass can edit Wikipedia. If the whole process needed to pass through "vetting" by authorative sources, it'd be unlikely that Wikipedia would have reached the width and breadth of topics it has reached. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-07 12:11:49 PM |
| #9 Regards Wiki - Aris makes the case against it, certainly not for it, in #3. Where is the obvious requirement that the edit / entry be, at the least, quarantined until vetted by several authoritative sources? The essence of this proud proclamation being any jackass can contribute their spin or spew. Wiki used to be useful - I no longer trust it even for historical factual timeline information - it has been PC-ized regards Islamists by Islamists and Symps. I only quote it occasionally, now, and only for apolitical topics. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-01-07 9:57:24 AM |
| #8 The one I would target is the British Probert Encyclopedia, which is professionally produced, widely cited, and riddled with Goebbels-inspired anti-American propaganda, including this rant that passes as an article on the Invasion of Iraq. The phrase "according to opponents of the war" was inserted only recently btw. Before that, the article stated the conspiracy theory as a fact. Probert also contains many examples of that time-dishonored lefty academic device, the incidental histori-lie, as in this passage from Battle of the Bulge: "The battle is notorious for the atrocious war crimes committed by both sides, notably the slaughter of This certainly invites a conclusion of equivalence, but what evidence is there that American forces committed "atrocious war crimes" or that these are in any way "notorious" as compared to those of the Germans? |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-01-07 9:19:22 AM |
| #7 That was 1 min, 14 secs, Frank - your own reply to me. My first post here was a response to Sock Puppet. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-07 12:21:28 AM |
| #6 Frank, stop obsessing over me and my sleeping habits. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-07 12:19:33 AM |
| #5 2 minutes, 21 seconds has to be a record |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-07 12:18:57 AM |
| #4 Pavlov's Dog, I swear....get some sleep, Aris |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-07 12:17:41 AM |
| #3 If you don't like something on Wikipedia, the answer isn't "don't worry it will change", the answer is "go change it yourself". It takes half a minute and you don't even need to register to do it. Let's hear less whining about wrong information in Wikipedia, and more effort to correct it, shan't we? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-07 12:16:27 AM |
| #2 Aris is a source for Wikipedia. I stand by his credibility...off to the right a little bit, but nearby...ok, within "the vicinity" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-07 12:14:06 AM |
| #1 Wikipedia is not peer reviewed, If you want put anything on there they will take it. That a number of over active leftist wankers tend to post lots there should tell you something. If you don't like something on there don't worry it will change, repeatedly. Funny facts rarely change if they are right in the real world. Would anyone cite any Wiki for any purpose in the real world? |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-01-07 12:11:29 AM |