Wikipedia wiki 3 - Recently Updated Pages

Destroy the WIKI.

Semyon — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:40:40 CDT

Wikipedia cannot be a reliable source for a serious themes, and it is obvious. There are no teachers that would advice using wikipedia as a main info source. The main advantage seems to be the main disadvantage,i.e. everyone can write anything he or she wants.
Do you think that all the people are journalists and scientists that are working only with facts, so you must be a creator of wikipedia.org.
But still wikipedia can be useful if it means “entertainment”- people write funny stories, cases, pics, videos etc. That is a good way to use wiki.
As for wikipedia that is existed right now, well, you can read it but if you use info from that source you should check it… twice, i think.

Write anything you know that proves that wiki is not reliable, and maybe together we will finally make a world better.

Here is very interesting fact with wiki proving its unreliability. Wikipedia is not neutral or reliable They claim that that site only presents “neutral” information. However, those administrators are writing their own articles.

On November 29, 2006, International Herald Tribute published an article “Chinese-language Wikipedia presents different view of history” [http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/29/news/wiki.php] by Howard W. French from The [[New York Times]]. The subtitle is “Sensitive topics get gentle treatment.” Since then, many other sites published similar articles.

The wikipedia’s article “[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Wikipedia Chinese wikipedia]” is written only by the Chinese language wikipedia administrators, no others users are allowed to write anything bad about it or they will be banned. And they are violating wikipedia’s own rules by quoting their own words as if they are the real truth in order to defend their “innocence.”

When other users who disagree with those lying administrators try to add more information to the “Chinese wikipedia” article, their editions were immediately deleted under the disguise of “vandalism” by the wikipedia [[OCD]] administrators. Here is the version - [[Chinese Wikipedia]] that they called vandalism.And the article was put under protection, “This article is currently semi-protected to prevent sock puppets of currently blocked or banned users from editing it. Please discuss changes on the talk page, or request unprotection.”

On the external link section, it has a direct link to a personal blog which is written by the Chinese wikipedia administrator who claim that everyone misunderstood the Chinese langaguage wikipedia. It is against the wikipedia’s rules to link any personal blog site, because it was done by the administrators, so it was ok for them to abuse their editing power. And there was no other links that disagree with his point of views even though many users completely disagree with them.

There are many examples such as this one, wikipedia administrators only keep editions that they like, otherwise, those will be deleted for “vandalism,” and the person who wrote that will be banned.
Taken from: FreedomRocks by Semyon |
Login? | Terms of Use

Wikipedia: For or Against!

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:45:32 CDT

this is my Wiki and am going to do WHATEVER I want!!!!
Wikipedia Reliability
The quetion about reliability of the Wikipedia is quite controversial. At the one hand, as my teacher of IR think is that Wikipedia cannot be authoritative source of infromation. Mr. Graham (Mr. Graham? What does he know?) suggested that Wikipedia written by the nonprofesional, amateur reporters. They arenot testing and the process of editing information there is chaotic. Sometimes he even promise to punish you because you using Wikipedia site as the main sourse of information to you written work or for presentation.
At the other hand, as Elena Vladimirovna, the Critical Thinking teacher, claim that Wikipedia untrustworthy help students to develop critical thinking skills. “You need to be carefull about trusting all that you read” - she said.
Ross Mayfiels, the journalist of the “We media” project agree that Wikipedia is not reliable source. But the main plus of the Encyclopedia is that it takes the idea of open source. I understand it like everybody can use it. Wikipedia is open for thousands of people. Through Wikipedia we can improve our talent, working skills, writing skills and learn something new. Indeed, through this process any source can become reliable and credible. Ross Mayfield mentioned one intereting fact that “We Media” project was started with Wikipedia format.
I have read some comments to the Ross Mayfield article. The same dissent about Wikipedia I meet there. Some people think that this source is silly, stupid and simple. Other think that Wikipedia is helpfull and comfortable.
At the conclusion, I wanted to say that we must give a chance to the Wikipedia. In my oppinion, the biggest plus of Wikipedia is that it is developing.

Is Wikipedia a reliable resource?

June 25th, 2007 Victoria

As we found out several days ago during class session, several people would still use Wikipedia, even if it is prohibited by their instructors (teachers,professors…etc). Why it is so popular? Firstly, it’s easy to access and it contains everything that simple people want to know, because it is actually created (or could be corrected) by these simple people, except protected articles Secondly, as Wiki itself put it, this free encyclopedia allows so many opportunities to cooperate for people: navigation system, discussion pages, reviews and reverts and so on. In my personal opinion, people could trust Wikipedia because they always provides readers with references and if at some stage in reading some questions appears, Wikipedia’s texts have links within and search button on right side. Even Wiki works together with Google on limited rights, but no way in order to find more accurate information. Also, about writing on Wiki- in England, for example, it is not so easy – future author should wait for 3 days in order to gain access, in Portuguese, at least 15 editing should be made before publishing. Edits could also be made automatically (“bots”).Owing to Wikipedia so many communities has been created (wiki farms, for instance, could be personal, private wiki on the Web)! Wiki also provides links to other sources- that is also plus, and do you know how many languages Wiki use for writing? 82- that’s the point! Useful for everyone and used by everyone…I hope, that is not sound as ad J))

Wikipedia - believe or not to belive?

June 25th, 2007 at 10:31 pm (Uncategorized)

Personally, I like Wikipedia. I like how entries are structured, I like its multilingual interface and the way users can turn from one entry to another following the relevant links. So, I think that it is a great depository of information of any kind for person that seeks knowledge on whatever topic. But if to speak of Wikipedia as a ground to make a judgment or some statement on then a question of its credibility arises inevitably.
Wikipedia has been often criticized for its “open source” approach to compilation of the entries. And the distrust seems to be completely understandable and make sense when you find out that the source is being written by different unknown people you have no idea about. How to trust in such a free accessible and easy updating source?
To my mind, there is a level of trust you may put on Wikipedia, because its main peculiarity of empowering any volunteer to write on his own can be also viewed as a strength - as we know each coin has two sides J So, on the one hand, if to think radically, it looks like an absurd to believe some crazy man (who knows?) who probably decided to rewrite the history of his country. Of course, I’m not claiming that every person has such a rich imagination, but nevertheless it’s possible. So, if this happens then the same “open sourceness” transforms into strength as it leaves an opportunity to all other people to check and edit the mistake. Thus, this process of checking and editing once makes the entry perfect. This can’t be reached by print editions so frequently; they only can be republished from time to time. I’ve read an interesting article “Why believe Wikipedia?” where the author brought a few fairly sensible reasons answering this question. First, he mentioned the nature of human judgment – people tend to believe information that is logically organized, linguistically correct and sounds right… Also, people always compare the information with their already stored knowledge on the subject. Secondly, a very important argument which I’ve already touched – a long edit history of an entry. “It becomes yet more credible if the discussion pages are long and rich”. And thirdly, a remarkable feature of Wiki’s pages is its “warning signs” that make readers be aware of possible mistakes and, thus, make Wikipedia more trustworthy. Because the more suspicious is that one who doesn’t doubt at all… J

June 26, 2007 Aliya

As for me Wikipedia is very reliable resource. When I write some essay I am always use this site. It’s very easy to find some information. You can also find information in different language.As for me it’s very comfortable, because I open this site and find all information what I need and don’t like seat in library.That is why for me Wiki is good sites.I think most of people agree with me,with Wiki we save our time, and information in Wikipedia absolutly FREE! Thanks

June 25, 2007} Is Wikipedia a reliable resource?

I think that Wikipedia is reliable resource. In this resource I can find a lot of really useful
information. As for me it will be more easier than I will search another site. I can say that
I can trust the information with find, because I think than people who write article they
know what they write thse articles, really know what they do, moreover I want to add,
that sometimes people can add information which cannot be found in some books.
So I think that Wikipedia a reliable resourse.

Thank you for your attention and now SMILE!!!!

This wiki is secretly owns by the Julee87!!! Shhh!!!!

Home

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:26:14 CDT

is wiki a reliable sourse ?
Like many paticular issues this one have several answers.On one hand I can say - yes! because lots of time I surf at wiki's site, looking for some themes and find not only correct info but very unified and concreate, most of the time we haven't time to check the info but fortunately I always look for the things which I knew enough and when I read I remember it ! It's a pity of course when people don't know the issue and sometimes have failed because they are not looking in another sourses (
all sourses are good, but we should try to learn how to work wiht them right. In wiki's case I think it's enough to search the info you want in another sourse and comare it, bexause if the info is truthful it will not take a lot time ))

qweqwe

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:13:14 CDT

I think that Wikipedia is reliable source. There I can find loads of really useful

information. Moreover I trust the information which I found, because in wikipedia

there is an option which helps to update article, so this mean that some people

who knows theme willl write some useful stuff. Also I want ot add that some

people add information which really hard to find. In my opinion it’s realiable 100%