Log in

View Full Version : Wikipedia?


Eric
January 3rd, 2009, 10:34 PM
While thinking of the all-knowing awesomeness of Google, a thought occurred to me: "Does Wikipedia have any place in the divinity that is Google?" Obviously Wikipedia doesn't compare to Google, but have you noticed when you search for various terms the Wikipedia article is one of the first results Google will give you? That's got to count for something.

Tsar Phalanxia
January 3rd, 2009, 10:44 PM
Wikipedia is the Holy Book :D

Eric
January 3rd, 2009, 10:52 PM
Hahaha that would make sense. Wikipedia is scripture.

rzm61
January 4th, 2009, 09:14 PM
That we get to change. :icon_twisted:

tagnostic
January 4th, 2009, 09:33 PM
winners write history
losers write diaries

Eric
January 5th, 2009, 01:09 AM
That we get to change. :icon_twisted:

How is that any different than the Bible? :D

rmw
January 5th, 2009, 01:25 AM
How is that any different than the Bible? :D

You can't use Wikipedia as an academic source for research. (Hypocritical bullshit if you ask me.)

Eric
January 5th, 2009, 01:44 AM
Ugh, that's a good point. Such bullshit.

Eric
January 5th, 2009, 01:54 AM
I agree. It's a great tool for background reading, but not an adequate source.

Kabel
January 5th, 2009, 01:56 AM
What you cannot use Wikipedia for is as a source/footnote, and there are very good reasons for that.
Why not? The information is moderated... Right?

Eric
January 5th, 2009, 01:58 AM
Why not? The information is moderated... Right?
I'm pretty sure it is.

Kabel
January 5th, 2009, 02:03 AM
I guess you are right about the pages changing and being vandalized.
But what has the authors anonymousness got to do with anything?

Eric
January 5th, 2009, 03:16 AM
But what has the authors anonymousness got to do with anything?

Good point.

TypeKast
January 6th, 2009, 01:15 AM
Wikipedia is great for mostly anything except making citations in a research paper because teachers feel editors that allow a book to be published are more knowledgeable than the entire population of people who love their subject so much they edit Wikipedia as a hobby.

Glorious Google spends many a'caching times with Wikipedia.

rmw
January 6th, 2009, 02:16 AM
I actually understand why most teachers/professors won't let you use wikipedia as a primary source. Because anybody can edit it, there's no guarantee their information is correct, or even related to the article subject. (I remember one on a state politician, where the author stated something to the effect of "Doug Bruce is a douchebag!!11!!!1!") However, using the sources found in a wikipedia article can certainly make life easier when doing research.

Eric
January 6th, 2009, 02:24 AM
I actually understand why most teachers/professors won't let you use wikipedia as a primary source. Because anybody can edit it, there's no guarantee their information is correct, or even related to the article subject. (I remember one on a state politician, where the author stated something to the effect of "Doug Bruce is a douchebag!!11!!!1!") However, using the sources found in a wikipedia article can certainly make life easier when doing research.

You rarely see that, though. Almost every article I've read is un-biased. I did see a very biased article, but it was about Jason Friedberg, the god-awful director behind such charms as Date Movie and Disaster Movie. The writer said something like "His movies are very terrible and everybody wishes he would stop." :D

But I totally agree with using the sources, that has but my research time down exponentially in the past.

sailor
January 6th, 2009, 07:21 AM
* * * a whole bottle...

etc., etc.

:icon_lol:

:\

sailor
January 6th, 2009, 07:21 AM
Originally Said by Kabel http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?p=108759#post108759)
But what has the authors anonymousness got to do with anything? Good point.

Keep the mouses outta this! They've got enough books to worry about and things...


because teachers feel editors that allow a book ...knowledgeable than the entire population...who love ...

subject so much they edit Wikipedia as a hobby.

Glorious Google spends many a'caching times with Wikipedia.

* * *a whole bottle...

etc., etc.

:icon_lol:

:\

flowthis
January 6th, 2009, 11:21 PM
I am not sure about the source but I think it was Jimmy Wales speaking at TED. He said that the majority of the contributions made to Wikipedia by anonymous writers are relevant. To answer the original question, I think Wikipedia deserves some respect in our religion and the idea of Wikipedia being our Holy Book is just great in my opinion. In fact, if Wikipedia would be considered our Holy Book, we could say that there is a lot more truth to it than to all the other religious scriptures like the Bible for example. Speaking of the Bible, isn't the Bible the oldest Wiki in the world? After a millenium of word of mouth, people began to write the stories down and over the centuries the different books of the Bible evolved into a whole (bunch of crap). I think I made my point, we need a Googely scripture, until then there is something missing in our rising religion.

Dr Goofy Mofo
January 6th, 2009, 11:29 PM
Flow's back! Again!

Loki
January 7th, 2009, 02:09 AM
Flow's welcome back.

Hey flow - how was fsm? Did you relate to that charitable trust more than our no fee shitdom?

flowthis
January 7th, 2009, 03:15 PM
Flow's welcome back.

Hey flow - how was fsm? Did you relate to that charitable trust more than our no fee shitdom?

no way jose :-)
there is just one true divine being.....GOOGLE

and thanks for welcoming me back

Sister Faith
January 8th, 2009, 12:10 AM
Flow's welcome back.

I second that. :icon_cool:
Don't stay away so long next time, if there is a next time. :icon_evil:

sailor
January 8th, 2009, 08:31 AM
Yo, Flow.

Word... dude.

flowthis
January 8th, 2009, 05:03 PM
never ever will I stay away again.....:-)

but back to the topic, what do you guys think about the point I was trying to make earlier?

rzm61
January 8th, 2009, 05:05 PM
but back to the topic, what do you guys think about the point I was trying to make earlier?

:icon_eek:
You were trying to make a point?

sudikics
January 8th, 2009, 09:10 PM
I am not sure about the source but I think it was Jimmy Wales speaking at TED. He said that the majority of the contributions made to Wikipedia by anonymous writers are relevant. To answer the original question, I think Wikipedia deserves some respect in our religion and the idea of Wikipedia being our Holy Book is just great in my opinion. In fact, if Wikipedia would be considered our Holy Book, we could say that there is a lot more truth to it than to all the other religious scriptures like the Bible for example. Speaking of the Bible, isn't the Bible the oldest Wiki in the world? After a millenium of word of mouth, people began to write the stories down and over the centuries the different books of the Bible evolved into a whole (bunch of crap). I think I made my point, we need a Googely scripture, until then there is something missing in our rising religion.
I fully agree. Plus, with programs that look for questionable data on WP, it is worthy of mention on the main site.

Speaking of which, I'm going to write Matt and ask him to give someone (anyone, really) the ability to update the main site. It's been a year.

Eric
January 10th, 2009, 09:26 AM
it is worthy of mention on the main site.


So I brought something up that influence the CoG? :D

sudikics
January 10th, 2009, 04:18 PM
Not only that, you accidentally the whole website.

Eric
January 10th, 2009, 08:27 PM
I accidentally what?

rzm61
January 10th, 2009, 08:29 PM
The whole website.



Sick-o.

BRIGHT AND MORNING STAR
January 10th, 2009, 10:16 PM
Wikipedia is the Holy Book :D

In response to Mr. Carlin ...
is it not written ...
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.?
That was perfectly true ... ergo ... GOD is perfect and man has yet to become
One with GOD as he will be at the Feast of Tabernacles and no more death
will become reality for the true believers. Google YHVH, ETYHVH, ADONAI
What does Wikipedia know of this?

:wiki: Google This (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-5-OC_5rksk)

tagnostic
January 11th, 2009, 08:24 AM
wIn response to Mr. Carlin ...
is it not written ...
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.?
That was perfectly true ... ergo ... GOD is perfect and man has yet to become
One with GOD as he will be at the Feast of Tabernacles and no more death
will become reality for the true believers. Google YHVH, ETYHVH, ADONAI
What does Wikipedia know of this?

:wiki: Google This (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-5-OC_5rksk) (http://thestarthatwouldbegod.blogspot.com/)

hi meg

sudikics
January 11th, 2009, 02:47 PM
Fix'd.

sailor
January 13th, 2009, 04:59 AM
w

hi meg

tag, you

noticed..?

you 're

i

t

.

Eric
January 13th, 2009, 05:12 AM
Not only that, you accidentally the whole website.
It appears I'm slowly rising through the ranks. :)

Dr Goofy Mofo
January 16th, 2009, 09:38 PM
Wait there are ranks here? I have been here a year and now I find it out!