Blatant falsehoods on Wikipedia

[Battlegrinder]

I would mostly ascribe that to Wikipedia being so large that the staff cannot actually successfully ruin it as that would require an impossible level of effort from them.

Probably, once something gets big enough inertia will keep it running for a while, and while the article on any topic of political interest is going to be a mess, more normal topics should typically be saner.

You forgot #5: Wonder why we can't get new editors to join.

I think that would be 4, with the previous 4 becoming 5.

 

[Deleted member]

I certainly know I would never consider spending a single second editing Wikipedia now, nor give them a single cent. “Jimbo” has plenty of money.

 

[Flintsteel]

I think that would be 4, with the previous 4 becoming 5.

Touché.

 

[Sailor.X]

Well I contacted 4th Fleet Command today. Turns out the US Navy is currently having issues with Wikipedia and the false info they are presenting about other Naval Assets. And Wikipedia is not even accepting actual info presented by the US freaking Navy. I also contacted the company that currently owns the boat and talked with a representative their. They say they will get back to me. Yeah Wikipedia is non reliable and should be publicly shamed for what it is doing. I think I will pull the atomic bomb of exposing them to the media. I know a few reporters who can get the ball rolling on that front.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

Go for it Sailor!!!! Show no mercy. Wikipedia has caused me so many problems over the years . . . . . (Francis starts humming El Deguello).

 

[Navarro]

I certainly know I would never consider spending a single second editing Wikipedia now, nor give them a single cent. “Jimbo” has plenty of money.

I heard some years ago of him spending money acquired via his donation drives in Russian "massage parlours". Dunno how accurate the allegations are though.

 

[Sailor.X]

Go for it Sailor!!!! Show no mercy. Wikipedia has caused me so many problems over the years . . . . . (Francis starts humming El Deguello).

I am gonna contact WLTX, WIS, WCSC, The Post and Courier and a few other media sites. It may be grass roots but the other guys in the Unit will do the same. We are gonna make a stink.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

I heard some years ago of him spending money acquired via his donation drives in Russian "massage parlours". Dunno how accurate the allegations are though.

Well, if that's true, at least he was putting it to a worthwhile cause. I wouldn't like to think he was wasting it.

 

[MrBirthday]

I think I will pull the atomic bomb of exposing them to the media. I know a few reporters who can get the ball rolling on that front.

I am gonna contact WLTX, WIS, WCSC, The Post and Courier and a few other media sites. It may be grass roots but the other guys in the Unit will do the same. We are gonna make a stink.

I am looking forward to it. And Wikipedia refusing to accept information directly from the U.S. Navy about American ships is nothing less than insane.

 

[Scottty]

Anyone here given Infogalactic a try?

Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core

infogalactic.com

 

[Terthna]

I am gonna contact WLTX, WIS, WCSC, The Post and Courier and a few other media sites. It may be grass roots but the other guys in the Unit will do the same. We are gonna make a stink.

Hopefully, if nothing else, you can damage Wikipedia's reputation to the uninformed masses as a reliable source of information.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

Anyone here given Infogalactic a try?

Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core

infogalactic.com

I've looked at it; the articles I read were taken directly from old Wikipedia entries.

 

[Sailor.X]

I am looking forward to it. And Wikipedia refusing to accept information directly from the U.S. Navy about American ships is nothing less than insane.

That is the damning part. What in the hell is Wikipedia thinking. How can the US Navy not be a reliable source of the vessels in it's inventory.

Hopefully, if nothing else, you can damage Wikipedia's reputation to the uninformed masses as a reliable source of information.

They need to be exposed. They take donations from people to fund their operations. By not putting out accurate information and rejecting sources that can prove they are wrong. They are committing fraud. And that can't stand.

 

[Erwin_Pommel]

That is the damning part. What in the hell is Wikipedia thinking. How can the US Navy not be a reliable source of the vessels in it's inventory.

Because they're a biased source, duh

 

[Deleted member]

That is the damning part. What in the hell is Wikipedia thinking. How can the US Navy not be a reliable source of the vessels in it's inventory.

Because they believe the only legitimate way to add information to Wikipedia is by a voluntary Wikipedia editor adding it based on a source of the information being repeated somewhere else. And if you cross that bar, they don't care about anything else.

 

[Sailor.X]

Because they believe the only legitimate way to add information to Wikipedia is by a voluntary Wikipedia editor adding it based on a source of the information being repeated somewhere else. And if you cross that bar, they don't care about anything else.

There reasoning is Stupid and flawed.

 

[Scottty]

I've looked at it; the articles I read were taken directly from old Wikipedia entries.

Well, the other option would have been to start from scratch, I suppose.
But with editing, things will diverge.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

Well, the other option would have been to start from scratch, I suppose. But with editing, things will diverge.

On the basis of the articles I compared, there is no sign of that happening as yet. For example the article on Sir John Sullivan is a direct reprint of a two year old Wikipedia article that used the Peter Watkins film "Culloden" as a primary source. Since that film is horrendously inaccurate, the article is equally so. The Wikipedia has been extensively revised since then and the Culloden references deleted.

I think this points to a basic flaw in the "Internet encyclopedia" concept. These things start out with the best of intentions but as time passes, the initial surge of enthusiasm fades away. Articles become neglected (in Wikipedia, it's easy to find articles that refer to things "expected to happen" in a given year now up to a decade in the past. As people drift away, maintenance becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and the personal preferences of those people dominate the product. Rules intended to protect the integrity of the content become corrupted into protecting the opinions of the authors.

 

[LordSunhawk]

I will also note that infogalactic was explicitly a project of Vox Day and his ilk, and was started purely as a 'take that' to Wiki over Vox's wiki page.

 

[Scottty]

I will also note that infogalactic was explicitly a project of Vox Day and his ilk, and was started purely as a 'take that' to Wiki over Vox's wiki page.

The point being to build a platform there that's not under the control of Leftist ideology.