By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Wiki is starting to suck

GameMusic on 25 November 2007

They are fools who think that being exclusionary will make them more credible, simply because traditional encyclopedias are.

 



Around the Network
takeru51 on 25 November 2007
GameMusic said:
They are fools who think that being exclusionary will make them more credible, simply because traditional encyclopedias are.

 


Wikipedia has been found to be just as accurate as a traditional encyclopedia... So it would appear that whatever they're doing is working.



davidwes on 25 November 2007
takeru51 said:
GameMusic said:
They are fools who think that being exclusionary will make them more credible, simply because traditional encyclopedias are.

 


Wikipedia has been found to be just as accurate as a traditional encyclopedia... So it would appear that whatever they're doing is working.


 please tell me this is sarcasm. If its not that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Thats like the eposide of the office where Steve Carrolls characters says, "if its on wikipedia it must be true". HAH



This is my signature.

Kasz216 on 25 November 2007
davidwes said:
takeru51 said:
GameMusic said:
They are fools who think that being exclusionary will make them more credible, simply because traditional encyclopedias are.

 


Wikipedia has been found to be just as accurate as a traditional encyclopedia... So it would appear that whatever they're doing is working.


 please tell me this is sarcasm. If its not that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Thats like the eposide of the office where Steve Carrolls characters says, "if its on wikipedia it must be true". HAH


 

Actually that is true according to the studies done on it.  People can make stuff up in Wikipedia but it usually gets changed back relativly quickly.

Encylopedias on the other hand often have many "facts" in it turn out to be fiction before they are even released because of the unbelievable turnaround it takes to make encyclopedias.  Also, plenty of times they don't even bother to fact check because of the amount of volume they need to put in.



bdbdbd on 25 November 2007
Kasz216 said:
davidwes said:
takeru51 said:
GameMusic said:
They are fools who think that being exclusionary will make them more credible, simply because traditional encyclopedias are.

 


Wikipedia has been found to be just as accurate as a traditional encyclopedia... So it would appear that whatever they're doing is working.


 please tell me this is sarcasm. If its not that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Thats like the eposide of the office where Steve Carrolls characters says, "if its on wikipedia it must be true". HAH


 

Actually that is true according to the studies done on it.  People can make stuff up in Wikipedia but it usually gets changed back relativly quickly.

Encylopedias on the other hand often have many "facts" in it turn out to be fiction before they are even released because of the unbelievable turnaround it takes to make encyclopedias.  Also, plenty of times they don't even bother to fact check because of the amount of volume they need to put in.


I think this refers to, when they compared Encyclopaedia Britannica and wikipedia about their scientific articles, when it turned out, that, in the number of articles checked (can't remember the number), both actually had 5 mistakes. Anyway, in scientific articles, wikipedia has benefit over traditional encyclopedia, since the data can be updated real fast to wiki and science is something that changes daily.

Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Around the Network
endurance on 25 November 2007

yeah i used to visit there alot,but not anymore



endurance on 25 November 2007
tacoking said:
Wiki has, for the most part, always sucked.

not really



Girl Gamer Elite on 25 November 2007

Wiki used to be great for finding miscelanious information but now its hard to find anything that isn't pop culture on it.



dschumm on 25 November 2007

I thought the point fo Wikipedia was to have information about everything. The depth at which as subject was covered was only limited but the effort people wanted to put in. I was wrong.

However this is the way of all things. They are fresh, innovative, and useful then grow too big to be any of those 3.



Final* Word on Game Delays:

The game will not be any better or include more content then planned. Any commnets that say so are just PR hogwash to make you feel better for having to wait.

Delays are due to lack of proper resources, skill, or adequate planning by the developer.

Do be thankful that they have enough respect for you to delay the game and maintain its intended level of quality.

*naznatips is exempt

famousringo on 25 November 2007

That's too bad. One of the advantages of being an online computer database is that it allows a level of comprehensiveness that a hardcopy encyclopedia could never dream to have. As long as the disambiguation is good, I don't see the advantage of pruning down the number of entries based on their perceived importance.

Being able to find a wikipedia article on pretty much any subject is one of the joys of the site.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.