Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Wikipedia page for Linus media group

Faeint
 Share

So I have been given an assignment to do research and mention the details about the company where you want to work and the reasons for it and I was like, well let's go with LMG, since how do I put it um its a treasure trove of tech and then I started my Research but apart from the official site there is no wiki page where I can fin the condensed information. So my point being can there be a wikipedia page for LMG? Also are there any rules for creating pages on eikipedia?

Thank You

Sorry as well if it's a wrong question or inappropriate

 

Edit:- Already finished my assignment it was just a thought but just keeping it open here for the comments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

mY s YsTeM iS Not pErfoRmInG aS gOOd As I sAW oN yOuTuBe. WhA t IS a GoOd FaN CuRVe??!!? wHat aRe tEh GoOd OvERclok SeTTinGS FoR My CaRd??
 HoW CaN I foRcE my GpU to uSe 1o0%? BuT WiLL i HaVE Bo0tllEnEcKs? RyZEN dOeS NoT peRfORm BetTer wItH HiGhER sPEED RaM!!dId i WiN teH SiLiCON LotTerrYyOu ShoUlD dEsHrOuD uR GPUmy SYstEm iS UNDerPerforMiNg iN WarzONEcan mY Pc Run WiNdOwS 11 ?woUld BaKInG MY GRaPHics card fIX it?
 MultimETeR TeSTiNG!! aMd'S GpU DrIvErS aRe as goOD aS NviDia's YOU SHoUlD oVERCloCk yOUR ramS To 5000C18

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia turned in my opinion very toxic so it's your decision if you want to donate your time to the Wikipedia community and write a article about them.

 

If you want details on some details:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your assignment is to do research and you want to do it on MLG then I think that's a great opportunity to create a Wikipedia page and publish your text on there. 

 

Someone has already linked to the guidelines on making the page. 

 

Not really sure what there is to write though. The Linus Sebastian Wikipedia page already contains a section that's like 1 paragraph long, and it contains pretty much all know info about LMG itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your teacher should've told you Wikipedia isn't a reliable source to gather info for your assignments.

Using a shitcoin irl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is fine if you know enough to know what is accurate. It is actually not that bad of a platform. You have to know when it is time to break out the text books. 

 

As for LMG I imagine the best source would be interviews with Linus himself perhaps on youtube. Smaller companies tend to not be on Wikipedia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Caroline said:

Your teacher should've told you Wikipedia isn't a reliable source to gather info for your assignments.

"Wikipedia isn't a reliable source" is what lazy people say when they want to sound smart. 

 

Wikipedia is a great source. In most test conducted on it, it scores the same or better at information accuracy than professionally written sources such as encyclopedia Britannica. Hell, some notable examples of misinformation on Wikipedia have been repeated or sourced from "reliable sources" such as professional written university literature. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

 

The reasons why so many teachers parrot "Wikipedia isn't reliable" are:

1) Using multiple sources is always encouraged, and since Wikipedia is so accessible it makes students have the bad habit of just going there straight away and not look at other sources. 

 

2) Wikipedia is always a second hand source, and you generally want first hand sources when doing research. Not only does that minimize the risk of misinformation slipping in from misunderstandings, it also avoids making your own research paper a third hand source.

The game of telefone is a good example of what can happen when information goes from being first hand sourced to being third, fifth or sixth hand sourced. 

 

3) it's an easy way to get the message of "don't trust everything on the internet" across. If you tell people "Wikipedia is mostly reliable", there is a risk that people will blindly trust it even in some rare situations where it's wrong. Also, if you tell people one of the most commonly used sources of information is unreliable, it indirectly also says that other internet sources are unreliable. People are already terrible at being critical of their sources, so we don't want to encourage people to be even worse at it. Tell people that Wikipedia is unreliable and they might fact check a bit more, which is always a good thing regardless of your source. 

 

4) The accuracy of Wikipedia depends on what you are looking for. Articles related to let's say the mathematics of the RSA encryption algorithm is going to be pretty much flawless as there is nothing to interpret. It's just facts.

Articles regarding let's say some historical even where we don't know the answer (like some articles about dinosaurs) or some area that scientists are not in full agreement on (let's say research regarding races of humans) will be more likely to contain some errors since different groups are pushing for different things. Since Wikipedia is suppose to strive to be unbiased, those types of articles gets vandalized, have to mention/portray both sides even when one is more likely to be wrong, or it might just turn out that what we thought was true turned out to be wrong. 

Even the best research papers even written can be wrong. We shouldn't really take anything we read as absolute truth, especially for subjects that are nuanced. 

 

 

"Wikipedia isn't reliable" is just a dumded down way of conveying several nuanced things because the general public is too dumb to handle anything more complex than "X good. Y bad". 

 

Also, it has become a common argument ta ting that people use to shoot down their opponents arguments.

Did you get proven wrong in some discussion? Just tell them their source is invalid because it's Wikipedia. It's an easy way to not have to look into the facts yourself and instead you can just dismiss everything they said regardless of if it's the truth or not. It's like screaming "fake news" when someone brings up something you don't want to admit is true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the internet is unreliable for factual information.  

 

Wikipedia has some really good pages and I trust quite a bit of their content.  However, for actual research, quoting Wikipedia is unacceptable.  A good wiki page always has source links, that's where you want to start.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Heliian said:

Most of the internet is unreliable for factual information. 

While this is true, it's not the same as saying "most of the things you'll find, if you do a good search, will be unreliable."

 

There's a lot of garbage out there, and it's relatively hard to discover unless you intentionally look for it.

E.g. I've YET to come across any truly egregious conspiracy theory sites/pages. Maybe something about Gobekli Tepe and alternative world events involving a comet but that's relatively innocuous.

3900x | 32GB RAM | RTX 2080

1.5TB Optane P4800X | 1 TB Adata XPG Pro | 2TB Micron 1100 SSD
QN90A | Emotiva B1+, ELAC OW4.2, PB12-NSD, HD800
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming the topic of the article is prominent enough that some weirdo didn't just take over the article as their personal alternate reality passion project without anyone noticing, the information on Wikipedia pages is generally a reliable summary. 

 

Primary and scholarly sources (which you can find a lot of in wikipedia citations at the bottom of the page, often) are what you should be looking at for academic endeavors. 

Your "PC master race" thing is cringe. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

What we were taught at the University is to start with Wikipedia BUT to then go to all the links to the original sources to make sure they are legit - and quote those original sources. Wikipedia itself is not a source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×