Wikipedia editors turn to blackmail

[Ezskills]

 I gave up on Wikipedia a while ago...

 

^{A friend of mind was editing the entry about,George Washington. he made a short entry about a cited commendation he received, with a link to a .mil website. Within six hours he got a post on his Talk page by both an editor and a moderator that the entry had been removed and warning me about the triple revert rule. The messages that followed between me and those two were too silly even for the Marx brothers.}

^{The Wikipedia Contradiction: If you are an expert in your field, you are too busy to fanatically edit Wikipedia every day. And if you have the time to fanatically edit Wikipedia every day, then you cannot be an expert in your field.}

^{​The story above all through interesting has nothing to do with wikipedia's blackmailing people but when I read} 

Wikipedia editors turn to blackmail I thought of a story a friend told me because I just knew something else was going on at wikipedia they were not an honest company but I would have never thought they would have blackmailed any body.

Link Below

http://www.fudzilla.com/news/38635-wikipedia-editors-turn-to-blackmail

[Aytex]

school be like- never use wikipedia

[GzeroD]

school be like- never use wikipedia

School be like never copy or cite wikipedia; But if your sources and wikipedia's sources happen to be exactly the same, every time there's not really much we can do.

[Anult]

Wikipedia has been going down the toilet for years, it's only now that people's eyes have been opened to the extent of how bad Wikipedia is mismanaged.

[TheMechEngineer]

Smart people can become cocky assholes, it's just the nature of the group.

Once they start deciding that they're the smartest and the best, sometimes they like to reinforce the point by stomping all over the work of others.

But it's like the saying goes, blowing out other candles doesn't make your own burn brighter.

[Trik'Stari]

school be like- never use wikipedia

Mainly because they know if it was embraced by experts in their fields, that wikipedia would/could eliminate the need for colleges. Every source I've ever used, for every single paper I've ever written, in college, has come from wikipedia.

 

Which to me says either "we don't check sources" or "we see wikipedia and immediately refuse to accept it" which is a bias. Either way they aren't doing their jobs.

[JAKEBAB]

Is it finally time for a new wiki? I sure as hell hope so.

[Trik'Stari]

Sounds to me like people masquerading as wikipedia editors.

[linuxfan66]

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1738-wikipedias-war-women-4-weird-realities-inside.html

I'm not surprised

[Lewellyn]

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1738-wikipedias-war-women-4-weird-realities-inside.html

I'm not surprised

 

Bad article. Another example of how the retardation of feminism makes the personal, political.

[linuxfan66]

Bad article. Another example of how the retardation of feminism makes the personal, political.

It's not purely a discussion of feminism as it also brings up transgender. The point that there is an issue still stands. Also don't you dare start another sjw fight...

[winningsince1337]

 

^{The Wikipedia Contradiction: If you are an expert in your field, you are too busy to fanatically edit Wikipedia every day. And if you have the time to fanatically edit Wikipedia every day, then you cannot be an expert in your field.}

 

Therefore only Aloha Snackbar can edit wikipedia

[Yog]

Mainly because they know if it was embraced by experts in their fields, that wikipedia would/could eliminate the need for colleges. Every source I've ever used, for every single paper I've ever written, in college, has come from wikipedia.

 

Which to me says either "we don't check sources" or "we see wikipedia and immediately refuse to accept it" which is a bias. Either way they aren't doing their jobs.

Schools say don't use wikipedia as a source. It's ok to use it as a tool to find sources but not as the source itself. Or at least that was policy when I was in school.

[Lewellyn]

It's not purely a discussion of feminism as it also brings up transgender. The point that there is an issue still stands. Also don't you dare start another sjw fight...

 

LOL. "There were these times when a bunch of people were assholes to me on Wikipedia, that means Wikipedia is sexist!" 

 

Cracked is garbage.

 

This quote: "Or at least as evenhanded as you could be while still hosting a shitload of Ayn Rand."

 

Bad article is bad. Retarded feminist is retarded. Ayn Rand is a popular author. How stupid do you have to be to take this writer seriously?

[Albatross]

All apart of the larger plan to manipulate and control history, and who has access to it. :angry:

[Ekpyrosis]

Some idiots abusing a system doesn't make the whole system invalid.

Wikipedia is still pretty impressive if you think about how much knowledge it provides and how it managed to get there.

I couldn't cite it, but to quickly access some (preferably non-controversial) information it's very useful.

[Trik'Stari]

Schools say don't use wikipedia as a source. It's ok to use it as a tool to find sources but not as the source itself. Or at least that was policy when I was in school.

It still is, and that policy still illustrates a complete and total irrational bias on their part.

[Ekpyrosis]

Schools say don't use wikipedia as a source. It's ok to use it as a tool to find sources but not as the source itself. Or at least that was policy when I was in school.

Hilariously, this leads to some pupils citing sources without reading them, which is just as useful as citing some random guy on reddit imho.

[Albatross]

It still is, and that policy still illustrates a complete and total irrational bias on their part.

 

They want people to use their edited sources instead. To know the untruth.

[Yog]

It still is, and that policy still illustrates a complete and total irrational bias on their part.

How is it irrational? It's literally not a source. It would be like finding a part of Hamlet written on a piece of paper on the ground and using "piece of paper on the ground" as the source. The piece of paper isn't the source, Hamlet is the source, by William Shakespeare...maybe...so how about you go and find Hamlet, make sure that piece of paper is correct, and then use "Hamlet" as the source. You can explain in the text how you came upon that source but it's not the source.

[linuxfan66]

Hilariously, this leads to some pupils citing sources without reading them, which is just as useful as citing some random guy on reddit imho.

well in fairness its slight more reliable. i mean dodgy sources generally get thrown of wikipedia, usually. in reddit you arent required to be reliable...

on this very forum even when i ask people to cite sources they sometimes wont.

[Ekpyrosis]

well in fairness its slight more reliable. i mean dodgy sources generally get thrown of wikipedia, usually. in reddit you arent required to be reliable...

You're right, Wikipedia's sources are fairly reliable, but I wanted to say it is useless, because it reduces the whole process of citing sources to absurdity. It makes more sense to not cite sources at all than does to cite sources without looking at them.

[Trik'Stari]

How is it irrational? It's literally not a source. It would be like finding a part of Hamlet written on a piece of paper on the ground and using "piece of paper on the ground" as the source. The piece of paper isn't the source, Hamlet is the source, by William Shakespeare...maybe...so how about you go and find Hamlet, make sure that piece of paper is correct, and then use "Hamlet" as the source. You can explain in the text how you came upon that source but it's not the source.

Wikipedia includes it's sources. It's the teachers job, AS WELL AS the student's job to verify that source. Immediately disregarding wikipedia as a source of information, specifically because it's wikipedia, without doing any actual research into the sources used by wikipedia, is a bias.

 

They're assuming it's incorrect specifically because it's wikipedia, not because it's actually incorrect.

 

How is it irrational? It's literally not a source. It would be like finding a part of Hamlet written on a piece of paper on the ground and using "piece of paper on the ground" as the source. The piece of paper isn't the source, Hamlet is the source, by William Shakespeare...maybe...so how about you go and find Hamlet, make sure that piece of paper is correct, and then use "Hamlet" as the source. You can explain in the text how you came upon that source but it's not the source.

 

I wouldn't necessarily  go that far. Just that they have a bias towards the free flow of information and ideas because at a certain point, it will render them obsolete.

 

Although I can say from one or two things that I've seen, what is taught in history books these days is very different from what I was taught ten years ago.

[Albatross]

@Trik'Stari

 

I have documents and newspapers from the Civil War that greatly contradicts the modern history books recantations, and that's not the only thing they have changed. It is ridiculous how much has been perverted, especially in an attempt to fuel propaganda. I mean so many things were wrong in the books that I examined that I thought I might have picked up some sort of joke.

 

Imagine what it would be like if people weren't even allowed to use other sources outside of those given to them at school.

 

How is it irrational? It's literally not a source. It would be like finding a part of Hamlet written on a piece of paper on the ground and using "piece of paper on the ground" as the source. The piece of paper isn't the source, Hamlet is the source, by William Shakespeare...maybe...so how about you go and find Hamlet, make sure that piece of paper is correct, and then use "Hamlet" as the source. You can explain in the text how you came upon that source but it's not the source.

 

No, it wouldn't be the same. Wikipedia uses various sources, in which it links to, to verify claims it makes. A thrown out piece of paper does not.

 

Refusing people the ability to use their own sources or others just because it isn't their source/s is biased and irrational, and unnecessarily controling. If what they use off Wikipedia is wrong, it is the teachers job to check and verify the claims, regardless of the source.

[coppertj]

Really? So editing a public source of knowledge that can be kept highly updated and increase in legitimacy can't be because the expert isn't allowed to fix the article up? Bullshit wikipedia this is why schools don't want to use you.