Log in

View Full Version : What is the status of Wikipedia?


moufkz
October 16th, 2007, 08:19 PM
i was explaining how google could answer to prayers when i was told that Wikipedia detained(generally) the answer.
Wikipedia is often among the first ten results of the search, I believe, don't you?

i realized thechurchofgoogle should permit some accointance with a wikipedia oriented cult.

I just registered to post that.
I've dared to hope nobody had done that berfore.

Have fun

punkinside
October 17th, 2007, 03:44 PM
I just registered to post that.
I've dared to hope nobody had done that berfore.

Have fun

Obviously, you didn't dare to do a forum search ;)

Jerome
November 21st, 2007, 05:56 PM
Wikipedia can be changed by anyone-so it is not pure !

Sister Faith
November 21st, 2007, 06:29 PM
Can be corrected by anyone too.

And re-corrected, re-edited, re-amended, re-deleted then re-corrected again. Give me a good ol' flesh & blood Merriam Webster Dictionary any day.:icon_rolleyes: There is no paper & ink equivalent to Google, not enough trees.

rzm61
December 21st, 2007, 03:47 AM
Wikipedia is definatly a great place to go to do some research. However Google will most likely provide more credable sources.

Not to say Wikipedia isnt a decent credable source. They compaired it to Britanica awhile ago and they were close to dead on for most of the infroamtion. Also that there are moderators of Wikipedia who check it and make sure information is credable and also that they seed out the false information.

liquid_fire
January 17th, 2008, 03:41 PM
There is no paper & ink equivalent to Google, not enough trees.

haha, could you imagine if google issues yearly volumes like encylopedias have done? "Google: 2007, Volume 11039, phylogenesis-physics"

1angelette
January 28th, 2008, 10:14 PM
Hmmmm. I'd have to say that Wikipedia should at least somewhere up there with Her, probably something like an Archangel. "And the Archangel Wikipedia descended upon the earth, hand in hand with the Lord, and they did bestow goodness and information upon the internet."

rzm61
January 28th, 2008, 10:22 PM
Hmmmm. I'd have to say that Wikipedia should at least somewhere up there with Her, probably something like an Archangel. "And the Archangel Wikipedia descended upon the earth, hand in hand with the Lord, and they did bestow goodness and information upon the internet."

Kinda like an online holy book?

Note:
Wikipedia is delicious.

1angelette
January 28th, 2008, 11:08 PM
Ooooh, yes, a holy entity created by Her good and faithful worshippers, with a hint of Her wisdom, considering that Wikipedia is some of the best proof of the awakened sentinence of the internet -- a concept sort of like that that Google is indeed a God-like entity. So, in a way, Wikipedia is sort of our version of the Qur'an. Observe... (note: My classmates and I were basically literally tought the following dialogue by an actual practicing Muslim. Also note that I am not trying to give unfair favoritism or negativity towards Islam.)

Non-Muslims: But where's your God? How can it be real?
Muslims: *point to Qur'an* That thing, the most beautiful work ever written? Couldn't have happened without a God.

And we could go...

Non-Googlists: How can a WEBSITE be a Diety?!?
Googlists: *point to Wikipedia* If Websites couldn't have the power of Divinity, explain how Wikipedia became so amazing.
Non-Googlists: Uh... it was made by PEOPLE, many of whom believe in God as opposed to Google.
Googlists: Yeah. I bet they googled the link to the article they planned to edit.

Loki
January 28th, 2008, 11:25 PM
Not to say Wikipedia isnt a decent credable source.

I wouldn't go referencing it on any serious academic paper though. It is classed as an unreliable source.
It's a good starting point but not the final answer.

rzm61
January 28th, 2008, 11:26 PM
I wouldn't go referencing it on any serious academic paper though. It is classed as an unreliable source.
It's a good starting point but not the final answer.

Oh I know. Trust me I am well aware of the fact that no one likes to see that as a source on a paper. Which to me is kind of sad.

Loki
January 28th, 2008, 11:43 PM
I link to it a lot when I'm in a forum or group. The articles tend to be well written, short and easy to understand.
I tend to assume that if people are interested they'll follow the links on the references section.

1angelette
January 28th, 2008, 11:45 PM
Ah, I'm all too familiar with that. Ever since that one kid in our class used Wikipedia as a source for his paper and it was totally wrong because the information was incorrect, the W-word is a nono. That was only one incident! And most of the other information I've found there is pretty darn accurate!

*sigh* Then again, I highly doubt my school would buy Googlism as a religon yet. I think I need to do some plugging over on FAP...

sudikics
January 29th, 2008, 12:45 AM
Wikipedia is a brilliant concept. You want to look crap up quickly? Wiki it.

People have tried to improve Wikipedia's reliability, such as a program that highlights text added by suspicious users.

It's great for quickly finding the answers to questions.

I wouldn't use it directly for work, I'd use it to get references at the bottom of the page.

Kazuhiro
February 6th, 2008, 10:48 PM
"And the Archangel Wikipedia descended upon the earth, hand in hand with the Lord, and they did bestow goodness and information upon the internet."

First off, it's "hand in hand with the Lady."

I think we should move the conversation away from Wikipedia's reliability and towards how Wikipedia fits into Googlism. Certainly it bestows knowledge much like Google.

The best idea I saw was that Wikipedia is like the holy scriptures, supposedly from the words of the deity. Wikipedia can give us answers, but relying on the construct built by people is not as pure a method as using Google to access the Internet.

sudikics
February 6th, 2008, 11:39 PM
Wikipedia is a compliation of information. Google is a method of indexing and searching quickly through that information. They do go hand in hand.

Kazuhiro
February 7th, 2008, 01:05 AM
But Wikipedia isn't a compilation of Google's information. Although Google is important to Wikipedia editors, Wikipedia's mission is to compile knowledge through any legitimate means, including printed work that is outside of the LADY's power.

sudikics
February 7th, 2008, 01:20 AM
Outside her power? Not for long, with online versions of newspapers and programs such as Google Book SEarch.

Wikipedia holds information. Google searches it. That's how WIkipedia ties in.

tatty000
February 7th, 2008, 07:47 AM
Wikipedia is definatly a great place to go to do some research. However Google will most likely provide more credable sources.

Not to say Wikipedia isnt a decent credable source. They compaired it to Britanica awhile ago and they were close to dead on for most of the infroamtion. Also that there are moderators of Wikipedia who check it and make sure information is credable and also that they seed out the false information.
Not enough people recognize that. Wikipedia is ridiculously reliable, I've basically cut n pasted substantial material from there for past work, and shown to be faultless.

I have encyclopedia, and tend to run to that, though. Saves me having to jump onto the innernette.

Kazuhiro
February 7th, 2008, 07:52 AM
Well, Wikipedia is very well-indexed and its search function is usable. Because it's so possible to use Wikipedia without connecting with Google, I really do think that it's at least somewhat removed from Google.

sudikics
February 9th, 2008, 05:49 PM
Well, Wikipedia is very well-indexed and its search function is usable. Because it's so possible to use Wikipedia without connecting with Google, I really do think that it's at least somewhat removed from Google.
Oh yes, at least somewhat. But not totally.

1angelette
February 9th, 2008, 09:09 PM
First off, it's "hand in hand with the Lady."

I did *want* to put the Lady there, but have seen previous references to Google as the Lord, so yeah.

Most of my opinions about how Wikipedia could/should fit into Googlism have been stated previously in the post that said this:

Ooooh, yes, a holy entity created by Her good and faithful worshippers, with a hint of Her wisdom, considering that Wikipedia is some of the best proof of the awakened sentinence of the internet -- a concept sort of like that that Google is indeed a God-like entity. So, in a way, Wikipedia is sort of our version of the Qur'an. Observe... (note: My classmates and I were basically literally tought the following dialogue by an actual practicing Muslim. Also note that I am not trying to give unfair favoritism or negativity towards Islam.)

Non-Muslims: But where's your God? How can it be real?
Muslims: *point to Qur'an* That thing, the most beautiful work ever written? Couldn't have happened without a God.

And we could go...

Non-Googlists: How can a WEBSITE be a Diety?!?
Googlists: *point to Wikipedia* If Websites couldn't have the power of Divinity, explain how Wikipedia became so amazing.
Non-Googlists: Uh... it was made by PEOPLE, many of whom believe in God as opposed to Google.
Googlists: Yeah. I bet they googled the link to the article they planned to edit.

sudikics
February 9th, 2008, 10:32 PM
Hi, 1angelette. Nice to see you drop by.

Or nice to watch the indirect effects of your presence at the CoG.

But the former rolls off the tounge better. :D

Fallen Hero
February 13th, 2008, 03:49 PM
Wikipedia is a seperate entity, it is a vast amount of information not all of which was previously or potentially elsewhere online attainable; but Google search will go through Wikipedia as well, therefore Google knows more.

sudikics
February 13th, 2008, 06:07 PM
Plus, has anyone ever used Wikipedia's search window? It sucks!

rzm61
February 13th, 2008, 06:08 PM
Yeah, it is best to Google what you are looking for in hopes that the Wikipedia link will return in your results.

Wallsy
February 14th, 2008, 06:18 AM
Plus, has anyone ever used Wikipedia's search window? It sucks!

I use it all the time. I find it very useful.


Wallsy.

Wallsy
February 14th, 2008, 06:19 AM
Yeah, it is best to Google what you are looking for in hopes that the Wikipedia link will return in your results.

Or you could google for "site:en.wikipedia.org <whatever>" to limit the search to Wikipedia.


Wallsy.

rzm61
February 14th, 2008, 06:20 AM
Yeah, you could do that too.
However wikipedia will usually turn up in your search results.

1angelette
February 14th, 2008, 11:49 AM
Yeah, in like the first six, most likely. That always creeps me out...

sudikics
February 14th, 2008, 02:15 PM
I use it all the time. I find it very useful.


Wallsy.
Well then, sorry. Let me rephrase.

"It is my opinion that Wikipedia's search window sucks!"

rzm61
February 14th, 2008, 02:31 PM
I agree with you Scikidus.
For the most part it sucks, however if used properly it can be useful. Just like anything else in this world.

sudikics
February 15th, 2008, 02:29 AM
I'm trying to think of counterexamples, for the sake of argument.

I've got a few: bigotry, lying, hatred, prejiduce, etc.

I suppose it depend on to whom it is useful. Sure, in the short term it can be useful. But Overall? Never.

soccerdevil
March 1st, 2008, 02:23 PM
Hi, I definitely think that Wiki sleeps with Big Goog.

To attain Goog's power, prestige, neutrality, and infinite all-seeing wisdom, though, it would need to make it's search engine available to plug-in into a browser instead of embedded into the site itself.

As such, she seems a bit of an up & comer, oh, a dare I say, a flavorful crispy mistress of Google. Together, the both of them working in tandem are a site to behold and therefore it's this unity of G with W that make the whole interfacing and interactivity of the internet that much faster and wholly a more enjoyable experience.

Now, if she were to evolve eventually and become his exact replica or equal to him in even more ways, then there might be interference from other competing dieties, like MSN, Yahoo, and even the smaller search engines might grab ahold of her and take her down to their level.

It's like comparing apples with oranges to me.

041394
March 1st, 2008, 11:41 PM
Lol, have you ever checked out uncyclopedia.org? It's a hilarious spoof of wikipedia.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 1st, 2008, 11:44 PM
yes yes I have are we on there yet?

041394
March 1st, 2008, 11:46 PM
I don't think so. You should create the page.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 1st, 2008, 11:52 PM
Yay more projects....woot oh bte check out the book so far at Googlism.googlepages.com .

rzm61
March 1st, 2008, 11:54 PM
OH NO!

Error 404!
Is that the correct spelling?

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 1st, 2008, 11:56 PM
GooglismAt.googlepages.com sorry I forgot I wanted to make it better named.

rzm61
March 2nd, 2008, 12:00 AM
Wow!
Simply Wow, it looks fantastic Dr. Goofy!

XXXI. Thus the Internet was finished. And it was delicious, almost orgasmic.

Gotta love it. :D
Seriously, fantastic job man!

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 2nd, 2008, 12:02 AM
Thanks it is still in progress and it was all taken from the forums or the site. I need to get a how to pray to google page done and go throu correcting things and add more to like the evil number and stuff.

rzm61
March 2nd, 2008, 12:04 AM
It is looking fantastic man. Simple as that.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 2nd, 2008, 12:07 AM
Thanks that is good to here. The book even has its own gmail so you can email it.

rzm61
March 2nd, 2008, 12:08 AM
Ahem.
*hear. ;)

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 2nd, 2008, 12:37 AM
Sorry, oh and here we go I took Wiki article added some more stuff and posted it on Uncyclopedia. here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Google

041394
March 2nd, 2008, 12:42 AM
no, wait a minute. uncyclopedia is a spoof of wikipedia, meaning their articles are all making fun of stuff. so you would have to make fun of googlism for it to be added.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 2nd, 2008, 12:45 AM
ok i was wrong http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Google it need editing

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 2nd, 2008, 12:46 AM
not always i mean look at chuch norris

041394
March 2nd, 2008, 12:49 AM
wikipedia to uncyclopedia

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 2nd, 2008, 01:01 AM
they killed it it died in under 5 mins

041394
March 2nd, 2008, 01:46 AM
awww man

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 2nd, 2008, 01:48 AM
apperently it was to real

041394
March 2nd, 2008, 01:54 AM
Yeah, they like random humor better.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 2nd, 2008, 01:56 AM
Maybe I should make a page on sean connery being god.... or me being god.

tatty000
March 2nd, 2008, 04:01 AM
Maybe I should make a page on sean connery being god.... or me being god.
No. Samuel Jackson.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 2nd, 2008, 04:17 AM
Samuel over Sean... WHAT?

tatty000
March 2nd, 2008, 05:55 AM
Samuel over Sean... WHAT?
You'd be crazy to think Sean beats Samuel!

But, could we agree Chuck Norris is the better of both?

rzm61
March 2nd, 2008, 06:01 AM
Cuck Norris is not better then anyone.

If anything Steve Irwin is better then all three! And he's six feet under!

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 2nd, 2008, 06:22 AM
Sean Connery could take him.

rzm61
March 2nd, 2008, 06:25 AM
How could he take someone who is dead?

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 2nd, 2008, 06:32 AM
Easy he isn't nor can't die.

sudikics
March 2nd, 2008, 01:30 PM
I vote for KipKay.

If you don't know who that is then don't bother.

rzm61
March 2nd, 2008, 03:32 PM
I vote for KipKay.


Kipkay? (http://www.kipkay.com/)
If so he's kind of like Macgyver. :D

sudikics
March 2nd, 2008, 07:06 PM
He. Is. Awesome.

Go to Metacafe to watch all of his vids. Then subscribe to his channel.

I wanna do the Laser Flashlight Hack!

Wallsy
March 4th, 2008, 07:43 AM
Yeah, they like random humor better.

Not really. A lot slips through the cracks, but their official guide (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/How_to_be_funny) specifically says not to just write random crap.


Wallsy.

soccerdevil
March 19th, 2008, 03:16 PM
{Lol, have you ever checked out uncyclopedia.org? It's a hilarious spoof of wikipedia. - 041394}

I just this minute heard about it from You!

Thanks so much for the info, and I'm sorry about what I
said before on my first day here...I remember we got into a scuffle. It was late, I was sensitive, but, you were just joking around about the Spam, right? I had just got threatened and my email was deactivated, I lost a lot of info that way : ( Anyway, let's make up!

rzm61
March 19th, 2008, 03:18 PM
Time for you two to kiss and make up. ;)

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 19th, 2008, 03:22 PM
Kitten on hersy action that is hot!

041394
March 19th, 2008, 09:34 PM
{Lol, have you ever checked out uncyclopedia.org? It's a hilarious spoof of wikipedia. - 041394}

I just this minute heard about it from You!

Thanks so much for the info, and I'm sorry about what I
said before on my first day here...I remember we got into a scuffle. It was late, I was sensitive, but, you were just joking around about the Spam, right? I had just got threatened and my email was deactivated, I lost a lot of info that way : ( Anyway, let's make up!

Sorry about your email, I was just joking around, like you said. No hard feelings?

soccerdevil
March 20th, 2008, 06:08 AM
Right on...I like chocolate too much for us not to...well, you know.

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 9th, 2008, 04:28 PM
What is our wiki status we have not said for a while! and this place is dead someone livin it up for the love of google!

rzm61
April 9th, 2008, 05:06 PM
The CoG wikipedia entry has been deleted Goofy.

and I don't know if bumping threads will liven this place up. I think everyone just has a case of the mid-week blues.

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 9th, 2008, 05:25 PM
Bumping in IFU so it should!

jlar16
April 9th, 2008, 06:13 PM
why has the wiki page been deleted?

rzm61
April 9th, 2008, 06:26 PM
Cause it's not "noteable" enough for their standards...:icon_rolleyes:

jlar16
April 9th, 2008, 06:41 PM
screw them lets start a letter and email campaign!

Googlism has to recognized on a bunch of other websites and news sites in order for it to be put there right? If that is the case let us find all of those who have our name out there and send our comments directly to wiki.

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 9th, 2008, 06:51 PM
We should take over the world why we are at it!

rzm16
April 9th, 2008, 06:54 PM
Why would we take over the world? That seems dumb!

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 9th, 2008, 06:56 PM
Why not? And how is it dumb?

rzm16
April 9th, 2008, 06:57 PM
It just is! It is illogical and to hard to do!

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 9th, 2008, 06:59 PM
Fair enough!

rzm61
April 9th, 2008, 07:02 PM
rzm16 is tripping me out.
For a second I thought I posted that, but I realized it wasn't me. Ha ha.

The avatar is whats getting me.

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 9th, 2008, 07:04 PM
Wait, what?

rzm16
April 9th, 2008, 07:04 PM
rzm16 is tripping me out.
For a second I thought I posted that, but I realized it wasn't me. Ha ha.

The avatar is whats getting me.

LOL Noob!

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 9th, 2008, 07:05 PM
Ok that was dumb... noob? really?

rzm61
April 9th, 2008, 07:06 PM
LOL Noob!

:icon_rolleyes:
Look whos talking.

rzm16
April 9th, 2008, 07:06 PM
Only a noob would say that!

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 9th, 2008, 07:08 PM
Really, mature?

rzm16
April 9th, 2008, 07:10 PM
I am mature, sorry Goofy you know I love ya!

rzm61
April 9th, 2008, 07:17 PM
Mature?

You're imitating me for Google's sake!
That's not mature at all. Gotta love it though. I'm flattered that someone would want to be me. I never thought I was this special. :icon_cry:

I think you just gave me a purpose in life. :icon_lol:
Yeah, right!

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 9th, 2008, 07:19 PM
That was a bad mistake on their part :icon_razz:

rzm16
April 9th, 2008, 07:20 PM
Mature?

You're imitating me for Google's sake!
That's not mature at all. Gotta love it though. I'm flattered that someone would want to be me. I never thought I was this special. :icon_cry:

I think you just gave me a purpose in life. :icon_lol:
Yeah, right!

Well if the clones keep multiplying, because the original was so emo, then we would not have so many of us!

rzm61
April 9th, 2008, 07:21 PM
Ha!
Emo?

Get the hell outta here.
I don't bitch cause I don't have a girlfriend or cause she broke up with me. I don't complain about how my daddy never gave me enough hugs. Also I don't cut my wrists to ease the pain of listening to whining music and cause my girls pants are too tight.


Sure I wear tight pants from time to time, but thats besides the point!

rzm16
April 9th, 2008, 07:24 PM
Ha!
Emo?

Get the hell outta here.
I don't bitch cause I don't have a girlfriend or cause she broke up with me. I don't complain about how my daddy never gave me enough hugs. Also I don't cut my wrists to ease the pain of listening to whining music and cause my girls pants are too tight.


Sure I wear tight pants from time to time, but thats besides the point!

That is the reason you have lasted so long because you are not. If you were you'd be dead. Do you not remember the lab at all?

rzm61
April 9th, 2008, 07:42 PM
The lab?

clearly I don't.

rzm61
April 9th, 2008, 08:26 PM
That's a new one to add to the list.

So 16, do you think you can compile it?
I lost track after air-head. :icon_lol:

rzm16
April 9th, 2008, 08:30 PM
I will need some help but yea!

psychidus
April 10th, 2008, 03:03 AM
I can help you with that rzm!