|
Have you seen this book,
The Internet Is NOT the Answer[^]
Well, not sure who ever said it was, so I didn't think it was the answer.
Interesting that Haters going to hate!
But, he's probably right. Way too much expectation of what the Internet (and world wide web) will do.
Interesting idea though.
|
|
|
|
|
Wikipedia sure has a lot of answers though 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Wikipedia sure has a lot of answers though
Yeah, the kind of answers that will fail exams for you -- i.e. wrong 55% of the time.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Actually Wikipedia is about as accurate as the Britannica was[^].
And for a more reliable source: Of course[^] 
For some reason my professors at the University didn't want their students to use Wikipedia, although some confessed they used it too. Find your information on Wikipedia, then find some sources elsewhere.
And I understand professors would say that, because if they published some article and their only source would be Wikipedia then it looks as if little work has gone in the study and as if any student could do the same, since we can all use Wikipedia. It's just the elite being conservative, as usual 
|
|
|
|
|
So a study developed and implemented by wikipedia.org found wikipedia to be the bee's knees.
Wow. Huge surprise, that.
I don't know how many details in wikipedia I have personally found that were incorrect, but it's lots.
Very recently, in a discussion in this very Lounge, maxx was continually quoting wikipedia about the BBC Micro, saying things like it was the first commercial home microcomputer (utter bollocks; it was closer to the 21st), and that BBC BASIC was the first BASIC that used subroutines (equally utter bollocks).
Wikipedia is all about ego. Every contributor is unpaid, and contributes largely for the ego boost.
That's fine, if:
- You don't have any conflicting egos (and OH, BOY! do you get conflicting egos in wikipedia).
- Ego-based inaccuracies are corrected, which, in the case of topics with fewer experts actually reading the pages and confirming their content (like the BBC Micro pages) just doesn't happen.
How much do you want to bet that the criteria for wikipedia.org's article selection was based on the number of experts contributing to the articles?
I imagine that there are fashionable-science pages and movie-star pages that are even better than the Britannica offers, but the accuracy of all the other information matters, too!
Very notable, however, is the fact that, even when confronted with the huge number of inaccuracies in wikipedia, people still sing its praises, saying that its the most accurate resource (e.g. even after everything maxx quoted was proven to be inaccurate, he still posted a hundred words declaring that wikipedia is the perfect resource).
Everyone needs to step back from the great idea of letting everyone contribute their knowledge, and turn in the direction that shows that knowledge is only a minor part of what people will always contribute, if given free rein -- the brown, stinky pile is a lot higher than the pile of knowledge.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Very notable, however, is the fact that, even when confronted with the huge number of inaccuracies in wikipedia, people still sing its praises, saying that its the most accurate resource
Mandatory clickety[^]
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Damn, when I grew up Britannica was THE reference used in the schools. My kids sated their curiosity with Encarta, what do they use these days then if Wikipedia is such a flaky source.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
The stone tablet version?
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: I imagine that there are fashionable-science pages and movie-star pages that are even better than the Britannica offers, but the accuracy of all the other information matters, too!
You should always check your facts with other sources as well, but that goes for practically ANY source.
How accurate is any printed encyclopedia after a few years? Probably not as accurate as any online source
The problem with a lot of sources is that they don't offer half as much information as Wikipedia though.
That's why I prefer Wikipedia over anything else. It's easy to find, easy to use and in most cases accurate enough.
Mark_Wallace wrote: people still sing its praises, saying that its the most accurate resource
What do these people use Wikipedia for?
It's probably not accurate enough for scientific purposes.
But I think most people just use it to look up a quick fact, or get acquainted with some topic, in which case it's fine.
I think it should be praised as the most accessible source.
Which is exactly why I use it. Quick lookup, I don't have to leave the house and I have a satisfying answer within minutes (or even seconds!)
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I think it should be praised as the most accessible source.
Which is exactly why I use it. Quick lookup, I don't have to leave the house and I have a satisfying answer within minutes (or even seconds!)
Yup.
It doesn't matter that it's probably wrong.
QED
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
And provided that Dalek Dave hasn't been editing the page...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
From what I heard he's to busy hitting on your wife 
What's he doing anyway, haven't seen mr. millionth lounge post in months...
|
|
|
|
|
She'd deck him, arthritis or not!
I once saw her drive a stiletto through a car door... Which was lucky, as she was aiming at the guy's Gentlemen's Vegetables...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Of course not. 42 is the answer!
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
My sister-in-law is looking to find a roommate in Amsterdam. She just got a new job there and needs to settle in.
Anyone in the same situation or know of someone needing a roomie?
(And, yay, I don't have to go to Paris anymore for visits! )
|
|
|
|
|
There are whole websites dedicated to that. Mostly used by students though.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but it's always better to find a "friend of a friend" rather than a stranger, if possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depends, is she hot?
Seriously though, I live on the other side of the country. If she's ever in Dirksland (which is never ) she's welcome to stay
|
|
|
|
|
Of course she is. I chose my in-laws very carefully.
This is her[^]
|
|
|
|
|
So she's cute and I get to French kiss her too?
Let me rent an apartment in Amsterdam...
|
|
|
|
|
:p
I, of course, married the hotter sister.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure she'll visit us in Amsterdam... 
|
|
|
|
|
GenJerDan wrote: I, of course, married the hotter sister.
How do you know it?
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
|
|
|
|
|
Since I intend to stay married, I cannot answer.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
