ErdosvillePhil
Joined 16 October 2006
Latest comment: 17 years ago by ONUnicorn in topic Erdosville
|
So instead of helping us fight junk, you created it??? Thanks! Tonight, I'll be going into the city to gun down a few urban street kids as a test to see how long it will take the cops to respond. Thanks for the idea, genuis! - CobaltBlueTony 20:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (Please note lighthearted sarcasm not really intended to be hostile towards you. Lighten up!)
- Part of the purpose of our experiment is to give evidence that the model Wikipedia uses simply does not work. We aren't interested in "fighting nonsense" on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia simply is not an encyclopedia, but a place where people can play encyclopedia on the web. The current model is flawed, and we are writing a paper which reveals those flaws and talks about how to fix the model itself. ErdosvillePhil 20:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you are writing a paper that reveals those flaws and talks about how to fix the moddel, then please, by all means, provide a link to the paper when it is ready so that we can improve. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Will do, but you won't like it, as the inability of Wikipedia is the least of your concerns when the article gets out. We've found flaws that are much worse and run much deeper, including the existance of communities hidden in Wikipedia which pedal things not related to your project. It amazes me the number of galleries of pornography that exist in a supposed encyclopedia. I'm not talking about encyclopedic pictures, but ones not even in other articles collected on these gallery pages. ErdosvillePhil 20:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Most of Wikipedia's flaws are already well known and, in my opinion, stem more from the flaws inherent in human nature than from the concept of Wikipedia itself. It's a constant battle, and one a lot of Wikipedians are dedicated to fighting. As for image galleries, images on Wikipedia are supposed to be used in an article or removed, but they run into the same problems that nonsense articles like your little test run into. Now, images uploaded into Wikimedia Commons are a whole other matter, and if you were looking at image gallaries you probably were looking there. Wikimedia Commons is not an encyclopedia, but a collection of free images not bound by copyright. It's a seperate project, but run by the same people. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's flaws are primarily in its model. You cannot expect it to form an encyclopedia the way it is run. Citizendium stands a much better chance, albeit with a much worse project name. As for galleries, they exist in Wikipedia itself. I doubt the founder, as a pornographer himself, much minds. For all we know he supports such things. ErdosvillePhil 20:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, if Citizendium adheres to the statement from their website "...because there will probably always be articles in the resource that have not been vouched for in any sense..." they will have the same problems Wikipedia has. Unsourced articles and statements are pretty much where all the problems start.--Isotope23 20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's flaws are primarily in its model. You cannot expect it to form an encyclopedia the way it is run. Citizendium stands a much better chance, albeit with a much worse project name. As for galleries, they exist in Wikipedia itself. I doubt the founder, as a pornographer himself, much minds. For all we know he supports such things. ErdosvillePhil 20:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Most of Wikipedia's flaws are already well known and, in my opinion, stem more from the flaws inherent in human nature than from the concept of Wikipedia itself. It's a constant battle, and one a lot of Wikipedians are dedicated to fighting. As for image galleries, images on Wikipedia are supposed to be used in an article or removed, but they run into the same problems that nonsense articles like your little test run into. Now, images uploaded into Wikimedia Commons are a whole other matter, and if you were looking at image gallaries you probably were looking there. Wikimedia Commons is not an encyclopedia, but a collection of free images not bound by copyright. It's a seperate project, but run by the same people. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Will do, but you won't like it, as the inability of Wikipedia is the least of your concerns when the article gets out. We've found flaws that are much worse and run much deeper, including the existance of communities hidden in Wikipedia which pedal things not related to your project. It amazes me the number of galleries of pornography that exist in a supposed encyclopedia. I'm not talking about encyclopedic pictures, but ones not even in other articles collected on these gallery pages. ErdosvillePhil 20:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you are writing a paper that reveals those flaws and talks about how to fix the moddel, then please, by all means, provide a link to the paper when it is ready so that we can improve. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Can you substantiate these claims that User:Jimbo Wales is a pronographer?
- I agree that the Wikpedia model is flawed for encyclopedic purposes. Take the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Jehovah's Witnesses for example: opponents of this religious group of every variety go to no ends to twist and skew the facts about them, and love to use Wikipedia as a platform for their narrowly held, incendiary opinions. The headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses has not advised members to attempt to correct these articles as doing so would be "frustrating, time wasting, and likely futile." - CobaltBlueTony 20:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- "...opponents of this religious group of every variety go to no ends to twist and skew the facts about them, and love to use Wikipedia as a platform for their narrowly held, incendiary opinions." But that, like the desire to vandalise, is a problem inherent in human nature as much as in wikipedia itself. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- However, to get the facts without bias, some measure of exclusivity should be maintained when examining "authoritative" sources. One cannot accept every human perception as accurate, unbiased, or without ulterior motive. Therefore, Wikipedia as a completely open resource has no reliable claim to accuracy. - CobaltBlueTony 21:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- "...opponents of this religious group of every variety go to no ends to twist and skew the facts about them, and love to use Wikipedia as a platform for their narrowly held, incendiary opinions." But that, like the desire to vandalise, is a problem inherent in human nature as much as in wikipedia itself. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- As to Jimbo's status as a pornographer, it is a known fact. He made his money off of adult content, check his Wikipedia article. ErdosvillePhil 14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- It seems open to [your] interpretation, here: Jimbo_Wales#Bomis_and_Nupedia. Are "R-rated movies" pronographic? Depends on your personal tastes, but Wales disputes the categorization of the referenced material as pornographic. Certainly, a wealthy man like him could go ahead and create a full-fledged pron company if he so chose. Bomis was not intended to go down that route. - CobaltBlueTony 16:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- As to Jimbo's status as a pornographer, it is a known fact. He made his money off of adult content, check his Wikipedia article. ErdosvillePhil 14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Even Wikipedia agrees it was "adult content". ErdosvillePhil 21:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- "Adult content" and "pornography" are two VERY different things. Movies that are rated PG can be said to have "adult content" in them, even if there's no "adult situations," "partial nudity," or "graphic depictions of violent acts." "Adult content" could be a very frank discussion between two adults that one would never have with children around. In this case, I imagine Wales' site searched for scantily clad images that may have included but was not restricted to images of a pornographic nature. - CobaltBlueTony 17:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Even Wikipedia agrees it was "adult content". ErdosvillePhil 21:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not the sort of thing you're used to. Duly noted. As far as your "experiment" goes, a couple of things: 1) People "test" wikipedia all the times. Probably thousands of times a day. Some get caught, some don't. The ones that get caught shrug and walk away. No one hears about it. The ones that don't take their bullhorn to the mountaintop like you're about to. It's called the Biased sample fallacy. 2) How many fake articles did you create? How many got caught? Will they go in the paper? 3) The only link to the article is buried in the auto generated text of another article for a town with a population of 168. Not a very high profile attempt. Were their other high profile attempts that didn't get the results you were looking for? - Richfife 16:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Our other experiments were also a "success" in that Wikipedia failed to remove them within a year. I'm not at liberty to discuss how many there were until we publish. ErdosvillePhil 21:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- You're Agriculture, aren't you? - Richfife 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Our other experiments were also a "success" in that Wikipedia failed to remove them within a year. I'm not at liberty to discuss how many there were until we publish. ErdosvillePhil 21:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have edited under the following account: User:內布拉斯加. The other edits were made by uninvolved users. A fact we find interesting. I don't have any other accounts. ErdosvillePhil 21:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting that User:Xiong seems to share your overall sentiments. Also you? - CobaltBlueTony 17:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- No relation. You will find large numbers of people have this view of Wikipedia. Personally I have never actively edited it. My interests are academic and political. ErdosvillePhil 19:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- For the love of cheese, please DON'T bring politics into it!!! - CobaltBlueTony 02:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Like it or not, politics are important, and my state has an interest in what is on the internet. ErdosvillePhil 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- So you speak for your whole state now, huh? Well it was very irresponsible of you to add false information to Wikipedia. I hope you are not in a career in politics and may in the future decide to "test" government services to prove a point and gain political points. :P - CobaltBlueTony 21:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't speak for my state, but it will benefit from this knowledge. As for irresponsibility, Wikipedia is irresponsible for misrepresenting it's credentials. We have only provided case studies which prove it is true. ErdosvillePhil 00:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- But you have not, in all fairness, documented how many articles are faithfully defended, maintained, or are consistently correct. It may very well be true that Wikipedia is not nearly as reliable as its most ardent supporters may feel so strongly as to assert, but that does not meansd that it is time to give up on it, by any means. The ship may be leaky, but it is by no menas sinking, and the more hands actually pitch in to bail, the greater its chances of success. - CobaltBlueTony 02:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- When documenting the human rights abuses of China, one does not also document the positive things they have done, as it has no bearing on whether or not they in fact do commit human rights violations. ErdosvillePhil 18:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is irresponsible for misrepresenting it's credentials" How has Wikipedia misrepresented its credentials? It says, right at the top of the main page, "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That's right, the free encyclopedia that anyone, anyone at all, from your college professor to your 7-year-old child can, and does, edit. How is putting that right up in front misrepresenting Wikipedia's credentials in any way shape or form? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Because it claims to be an encyclopedia, when it is in fact not a valid reference source. ErdosvillePhil 18:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Validity and accuracy are not inexorably linked. :P - CobaltBlueTony 21:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- The only sort of valid reference source is an accurate one. ErdosvillePhil 22:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Is this your article? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)