×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

236 comments

TACO IS A FLAMING FLAMER (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877448)

fuck all you faggots CLIT FP

Re:TACO IS A FLAMING FLAMER (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877563)

Wiki - If you are ugly and will never have sex with a living woman.

The truth (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877457)

A bunch of censor-prone, fascist freaks.

Re:The truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877479)

No, no, no....that's /. moderators.

Re:The truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877706)

It's both.

Quality! (5, Insightful)

tabkey12 (851759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877473)

I always find the depth and quality of information on Wikipedia extremely helpful, but in my opinion, the care that is put into giving the background to anything from a medical condition to a technological term is truly amazing.

Good to see that a few of these people are getting the recognition that they deserve!

Re:Quality! (5, Funny)

PyWiz (865118) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877573)

The people who write long definitions on Wikipedia are the same types of people who write long slashdot posts: people who must keep looking busy so their boss thinks they're working.

but then (2, Interesting)

nounderscores (246517) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877692)

why is there no article about slashdotters who make it happen? :_(

Instead we are seen as this kind of human wave that takes down websites.

Maybe it's more eligatarian this way.

Good for them (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877482)

About time people who did this got some praise. Damn fine work they do, and an invaluable source of info.

Yikes. (4, Funny)

Faust7 (314817) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877491)

"(I'll) tell you how you know you're a Wikipedian," he said. "You read any nonfiction book from the index end first. (And you think)...

"...It's a good thing I don't have friends - then I wouldn't be able to do this!"

Re:Yikes. (3, Insightful)

tabkey12 (851759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877538)

Personally, I don't like the quote... When you read a good non-fiction book there should be an overarching 'story' being told if possible - an argument being made or a point of view being explained. To read it from the index end is to massacre the work that's gone into it.

You read a text book from the index end first!

perhaps he should have said... (4, Funny)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877868)

..."you also take a completely anally-retentive attitude to anything you see written on a computer screen, and have an irrestisible compulsion to comment on it, despite your comment being completely surplus to requirements"

I have one thing to say... (5, Funny)

mattmentecky (799199) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877508)

...Obsessive compulsive disorder [wikipedia.org]


Wouldnt it be ironic, if the OCD wiki, was edited, relentlessly?

Re:I have one thing to say... (5, Funny)

TwistedSquare (650445) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877554)

By someone, with an obsessive, compulsive, love of, commas, perhaps? ;-)

Re:I have one thing to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877825)

What? When? Where? What? What?

Re:I have one thing to say... (1)

scmason (574559) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877687)

Yes, with duplicate submissions in either odd or even numbers: "I have to click the submit button either 4 or 6 times or something bad will happen"

Re:I have one thing to say... (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877688)

Well, I for one, welcome our obsessive-compulsive... er, wikipedians.

Wikipedia has flaws, but its a truly worthwhile proyect.

BTW... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877520)

Any word on the downtime yesterday?

It's all just one big fraud (5, Funny)

nurhussein (864532) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877521)

See, those Encyclopedists [wikipedia.org] are just a cover for a political group that wants to take over the internet through the science of psychohistory. And they actually revealed their plans on their own website too, but say it's "fiction" to make it seem like a hoax! Brilliant.

WTF? Why would you /. Wikipedia? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877551)

Wow -- great idea to slashdot such a wonderful server when we KNOW it has bandwidth problems already...

Don't worry, Slashdotting is insignificant... (5, Insightful)

Jamesday (794888) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877679)

Don't worry about it. Slashdotting is insignificant to us. Typically adds only 150-300 hits per second. Apache web server CPU use [wikimedia.org] (we're about to buy 10 more), one of our Squid cache servers [wikimedia.org] .

Now, how many places can honestly say that a Slashdotting is insignificant (ducking from CmdrTaco)?:-)

Re:Don't worry, Slashdotting is insignificant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878062)

Being fairly new to slashdot, I have a serious question that is unanswered: If so many sites get 'slashdotted' from the flood of people clicking on links, does Slashdot ever get slashdotted?

Re:WTF? Why would you /. Wikipedia? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877767)

talk of /.ing wikipedia kinda makes me laugh

maybe it has happened in the past but wikipedia hardly notices /. now

its a noticeable but small blip in the squids traffic to the squids and pretty much nothing at all beyond that

there are two types of slashdotting:
1: bandwidth slashdotting: wikipedia has a gigabit link that is not exactly heavilly utilised so this just isn't going to happen.

2: server load slashdotting: (that is where a badly designed dynamic site can't keep up) squid pretty much takes care of making sure this doesn't happen (/.ers are very much a flash crowd they come they mostly view the same pages and then they go again if your site does seperate dynamic rendering for every pageview with no caching you are in trouble)

the main reason the /. effect is so infamous is because of the types of sites /. targets wikipedia long ago passed the point where /. looks big

http://www.alexa.com/site/site_stats/signup?site _u rl=wikipedia.org+slashdot.org&range=1y&widget=g&st yle=c&submitted=true&mode=graph&range=3m&amzn_id=

wikipedia has had problems (power currupts power failure currupts absoloutely) and more recently some problems related to the software keeping transactions open too long whilst purging the squids and to a lesser extent hardware shortages. HOWEVER bandwidth and /. are NOT problems currently.

I love the wikipedia, (4, Interesting)

Moby Cock (771358) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877555)

I think Wikipedia is excellent. It is amazing how much care is put into it. However, I also find it extraordinarily frustrating. The latency of it renders it pratically unusable. I hope that Google's bandwidth can help this because as it is, I find I do not use the wikipedia because of the hrrible lag.

And before you flame on, I DID send a donation.

Re:I love the wikipedia, (5, Informative)

Jon Chatow (25684) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877654)

Bandwidth isn't the problem (or the cost, really), but the servers. We spend $4k-ish a month on bandwidth (off the top of my head; ICBW), but we spent about $65k in just the last 6 months on servers (see the server list [wikimedia.org] ).

BTW, we prefer that people just call it "Wikipedia", without a definite article.

Re:I love the wikipedia, (1)

jaguar5150 (822144) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877966)

I have been using Wikipedia for some time now, and I have never experienced a latency issue. Perhaps I am hitting it at off peak times but I do not notice the lag you speak of.

Wiki (3, Interesting)

wpiman (739077) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877559)

While I enjoy the resources of Wikipedia- I often wonder how they come to terms with very controversal subjects- such as the Israeli/Palestinean conflict, the war of terror, the Halocaust--- etc.

There is really nothing to prevent me from going into those submissions and editting my view of the facts. There is nothing preventing someone from taking the other viewpoint.

I am suprised that these entries aren't changing on a minute by minute basis. Everyone wants to write history from their viewpoint.

Re:Wiki (5, Informative)

dkf (304284) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877628)

That sometimes happens (e.g. the page on Dubya at the time of the last US election). When it does, the page gets locked for a while so people can cool off and focus instead on conveying facts and balanced opinions.

Re:Wiki (2, Interesting)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877639)

"There is really nothing to prevent me from going into those submissions and editting my view of the facts. There is nothing preventing someone from taking the other viewpoint.
I am suprised that these entries aren't changing on a minute by minute basis. Everyone wants to write history from their viewpoint."

yep. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Wiki (1)

ogonek (833611) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877659)

Bad entries are removed fairly quick, I'd worry more about small errors creeping into existing entries than big biased changes.

I think you don't see too many huge errors because people who try to do that get banned pretty quick. And it's just too much work to post opinions you know will be removed in a matter of hours.

Re:Wiki (1)

Kainaw (676073) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878044)

There is really nothing to prevent me from going into those submissions and editting my view of the facts. There is nothing preventing someone from taking the other viewpoint.

Nothing? Nothing? Nothing? How about the hundreds of other people watching the article? Ever wonder why the history of some articles say "revert...revert...revert..."? It is a large number of people keeping idiots from vandalizing articles.

As for your comment that the everyone wants to write history from their viewpoint, it is true. That is why the controversial articles are so large. They include everyone's viewpoint. It is up to the reader to decide what they want to keep and digest or ignore completely.

but.. (1, Insightful)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877570)

How long untill it becomes so big it's worth alot of money, some company buys it and goes "oh well, you gave it to us when you submitted it. It's a subscription fee now.."

Re:but.. (4, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877638)

That's like saying the same thing will happen to linux.

Wikipedia is GFDL. No one can close it.

Re:but.. (2, Informative)

vossman77 (300689) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877664)

From here [wikipedia.org]

How big is the database?

About 170GB on 9 October 2004, excluding images and multimedia.

About 57GB on 11 April 2004 and growing at between 1 and 1.4 GB per week. This includes all languages and support tables but not images and multimedia. You can download compressed database dumps at http://download.wikipedia.org/.

It's released under the GPL, so anyone caan bring back the free content for free.

Re:but.. (2, Informative)

Meostro (788797) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877848)

This [wikimedia.org] has the whole database (in bz2 format) at 538MB for current [wikimedia.org] and 27GB for old [wikimedia.org] . You can get the old in 1.9GB p [wikimedia.org] i [wikimedia.org] e [wikimedia.org] c [wikimedia.org] e [wikimedia.org] s [wikimedia.org] if you like, too, but 6 * 1.9 != 27, so something must be missing.

Anyone have a torrent of these?

Re:but.. (5, Insightful)

kebes (861706) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877678)

That couldn't happen legally. The content on wikipedia has already been released into the commons. The copyright clearly states that derivative works must remain open. Wikipedia (or Wikimedia, or whoever) does not have exclusive control over the content, and thus have no legal ability to sell it to anyone else.

If any company tried to take control like that, someone else could just fork the content and offer it for free again.

Some interview! -- Wired needs to be a wiki (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877576)

"Stacey Greenstein" is a man! How the heck do you do an interview then manage to go to press with the wrong pronouns in places? Too bad wired isn't a wiki.

Hey wired, good job on your homework!

Re:Some interview! -- Wired needs to be a wiki (1)

DataCannibal (181369) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878060)

My first reaction to the name Stacey is .."woman" but then I remember.. Stacey Brown got Two, as the late great Shel Silverstein informed us, and all is clear.

Contribute. But don't be an obsessive fixer (5, Insightful)

mmThe1 (213136) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877582)

While I appreciate the passion in these cases, a little word of advice for the (and would be) enthusiasts: be cautious about becoming an obsessive fixer on any of the wikis (be it Wikipedia, or any similar website.) The obsessive fixers are PITA, specifically, the ones who turn a blind eye towards opinion of others. Many flame wars have errupted on these websites, not all of them being constructive for the content.

Be there. Contribute. But learn to read what others have to say. Let wikis evolve the way they are supposed to be. It's a website.

Quality, not Quantity. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877587)

This is all nice, but when will we get to the point where most of the information on Wikipedia will be reliable?

Kudos (5, Funny)

MetaPhyzx (212830) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877592)

..to the ladies and gents who do contribute to Wikipedia; I am grateful for thier work, as well as my 12 year old(especially on the Sunday before an assignment is due). I'd better get in the habit of contributing...=)

I give up. (2, Insightful)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877596)

I won't even start with the "dupe" stuff... can hardly blame you guys if wired.com is doing the same themselves. However, if you're going to have so many damn wikipedia articles, can't we at least get a wikipedia icon and category? You've done so for lamer subjects.

Re:I give up. (0, Flamebait)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877711)

Um, do you fools even know what flamebait is? It's not a fashion color option for something you otherwise would have modded "troll". I'd think that for this to be flamebait, at the very least, I'd have to say something controversial. Moreso, it should almost always be reserved for those statements that are intentionally inflammatory. Examples:

Flamebait = "Jesus Christ was a sissy."

Non-flamebait = "Wikipedia articles deserve their own icon/category."

Stay tuned for Moderation Lesson #2, where I explain why a first post cannot be "redundant". Oh, and go to hell.

Mod parent Flamebait! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877766)

Um, do you fools even know what flamebait is? It's not a fashion color option for something you otherwise would have modded "troll". I'd think that for this to be flamebait, at the very least, I'd have to say something controversial. Moreso, it should almost always be reserved for those statements that are intentionally inflammatory.

This makes me so angry! ARRRGH!!!!

/ An A.C. with infinite karma.

Still wondering who these crazy people are (4, Insightful)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877604)


Not meaning to be critical, but the article cited does not explain who these crazy people are. I don't exactly know whom the article is targeting at an audience, in fact. It publish a list of usernames with the number of submissions, along with brief snippets about two specific users. I was hoping to learn more about the actual type of person who is contributing, demographically.

I realize this would have taken a lot of work and might even be impossible, but would have made a hell of a lot better article. :-) Easy for me to say, from the comfort of my office.

Re:Still wondering who these crazy people are (2, Informative)

Johnboi Waltune (462501) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877761)

Click on the first link to see the list of contributors, then click on a username to see that person's profile. Most of them write something biographical there, and some have a picture.

Re:Still wondering who these crazy people are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877948)

This article os an offshoot of Wired's print magazine article on 5 or 6 key Wikipedians. If they gave away all of the information, no one would buy the print edition, right?
It also has an interesting section about Wikipedia's ability to "heal" itself whn posts get deleted or vandalised by trolls. It's worth the money.

Wikipedia 3 ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877624)

... Rise of the Bots!

who is these are (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877643)

who is these crazy people are

Heck. Where's the [edit] link to correct the typo? Can't wait for the wiki version of /. !!
Hmm.
/. ...
wiki ...
Er ... No. Forget it. :)

Slashdot Conspiracy (5, Funny)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877674)

As I was sitting here, playing Go, and thinking about another variation of game theory, another link finally solved the puzzle of the Slashdot conspiracy.

Talking about the beginning of Wikipedia, I realized that this was posted on slashdot. Not long ago, I discovered that a moderator on slashdot was named Samzenpus, who is the second cousin twice removed of Snagglepus [slashdot.org]

Well Snagglepus is famous for saying "Heavens to Mergatroid [freeserve.co.uk]

Mergatroid was the sister of a guy in a band called Newcleus [discogs.com]

The guy just happens to say [weddingvendors.com] , and I quote:

  • "(Yeah, that's how you do it Cozmo) (You were right, kid, that's the way you do it) (Yeah, like did you see when he went in the corner) (And he started doin' this) (Wikki-wikki-wikki-wikki) (Wikki-wikki-wikki-wikki)"

this song came out in the early eighties - a Paradox (how could a wiki exist in the eighties before wikis existed?). Cosmos, nucleus, wikis, it all makes sense now. Slashdot may look like an innocent little blog which slashdots servers from time to time, but they are in actuality trying to slashdot the universe

Re:Slashdot Conspiracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877844)

*BWOOOOooooOOOoooOOooOonngg*

(The sound of a gong.)

Re:Slashdot Conspiracy (1)

detour207 (838058) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877911)

oh no! We better make sure that the robotic time/space bending Hitchhiker's Guide bird stays well out of CmdrTaco's hands!

Wikipedia is too biased to be useful (-1, Troll)

callipygian-showsyst (631222) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877683)

For example, I keep adding "Charles Manson" to the page "list of eagle scouts" (a fact confirmed by many sources, including article in NY Times), and it keeps getting removed. I've been contacted and told they want to keep the list "nice for the kids".

No entries on Wikipedia can truly be trusted.

Re:Wikipedia is too biased to be useful (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877756)

Why is this comment being moderated up? A quick glance at the article's history shows that "Charles Manson" has never been added except for today, and has never been removed.

Re:Wikipedia is too biased to be useful (1)

Bronzefinger (769051) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878070)

Actually someone has removed him now, but on the basis that he isn't a scout, and that Swirsky who added Charles, was an account 'Account created to troll Wikipedia with this slashdot comment [refering to the original comment]', as admitted on his/her user page [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Wikipedia is too biased to be useful (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877819)

He appears to be on the page now. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eagle_Scouts)

Re:Wikipedia is too biased to be useful (2, Insightful)

Knx (743893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877820)

I keep adding "Charles Manson" to the page "list of eagle scouts" (...), and it keeps getting removed.

I see your point. But that would still be much harder and would take you *much* more time to have such an information added to a regular, old-school-paper-version encyclopedia, you know.

No entries on Wikipedia can truly be trusted.

Er... that sounds slightly exaggerated, right? :-)

Re:Wikipedia is too biased to be useful (2, Informative)

Bronzefinger (769051) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877928)

It looks like the article [wikipedia.org] was edited by a pesistant vandal, (Sistertina), from a brief look at the edit history [wikipedia.org] . These edits were also reverted (restored to the original version), fairly quickly, as they removed everyone from the list. If there are other edits removing Charles Manson, that don't seem to be by the same person, please post links to the edit history. If not, this looks to be more a case of one isolated idiot, rather than sytematic bias.

In any case, Charles Manson is on the list now. I also notice no comment about keeping the list " nice for the kids" on the discussion page [wikipedia.org] , was this in e-mail?

Re:Wikipedia is too biased to be useful (2, Insightful)

mindspillage (806179) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878018)

Charles Manson is an Eagle Scout? Can you back that up? Charles Whitman, another notorious murderer, is (and he *is* on the list), but a quick Google seems to suggest that Manson is not, though he's been rumored to be:

http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/eagle-scouts / [rotten.com]

There is huge outcry whenever anyone tries to make an article "kid-safe", and for good reason. But no, don't trust Wikipedia alone -- same as you don't trust *any other single source* without double-checking. I find it to be less biased than conventional print media myself.

Google (1, Redundant)

augustz (18082) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877685)

Love Wikipedia, and especially the folks who put the content together!

One thing though, it get's damn slow sometimes.

Wikipedia should either hook up with google on some webserving or

Google should grab a nightly dump and set up pedia.google.com

Ignore the idiotic slashdot articles about google trying to take things over and lock things up. Wikipedia is licensed to prevent that, but also to allow sharing, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed they take google up on their hosting offer sooner rather then later.

Good luck!

Re:Google (0, Troll)

mrtroy (640746) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877786)

Google should grab a nightly dump and set up pedia.google.com

Thats disgusting. Grabbing dumps is bad enough, but then u bring Pediaphiles [wikipedia.org] into it.

They prefer the term Sesqwikipedian. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877708)

After all, they are more verbose than the average Wikipedian -- enough to be a Wikipedian and a half.

Which of course brings up the question, if a Wikipedian and a half can write an article and a half in a day and a half, how many Wikipedians are needed to write six articles in six days?

wikipedia skeptic (3, Insightful)

donnyspi (701349) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877721)

I seem to be the only one so far to write a semi-negative comment about Wikipedia. I have found numerous errors when reading articles. I personally do not believe that the wikipedia gets better as more and more people edit and contribute. If I were a teacher I would never allow anyone to cite from Wikipedia in a report.

People should use caution when trusting info from there due to the fact that anyone can slip a bit of misinformation in there without anyone noticing for months or years.

Re:wikipedia skeptic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877738)

> People should use caution when trusting info from there due to the fact that anyone can slip a bit of misinformation in there without anyone noticing for months or years.

Not in my experience. Editors must watch the list of recently changed pages like hawks.

Re:wikipedia skeptic (2, Insightful)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877860)

You are absolutely right. Use Wikipedia as a starting point for some hints, but if it's important, confirm everything you read there with reliable sources.

Re:wikipedia skeptic (1, Insightful)

LMCBoy (185365) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877920)

If you see an error in a wikipedia article and you do not edit the article and correct the error, then you are not using wikipedia correctly. No wonder you're dissatisfied!

Re:wikipedia skeptic (1)

corngrower (738661) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878071)

If I were a teacher I would never allow anyone to cite from Wikipedia in a report.

Although 99.5% of the information is accurate. Researchers need to go beyond wikipedia articles to better ascertain the validity of its information. It's a good starting point. There is information in wikipedia that would be difficult to obtain without access to a good research library or personal access to an expert, however. It contains a lot of information that could not be found anywhere in a typical public library. It also contains a lot of fluff, nonsense articles.

Knowledge is democratized? (4, Insightful)

Morris Thorpe (762715) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877744)

From the article: "Wikipedia is ... democratizing knowledge on a massive scale,"

So...if Wikipedia had been around way back when... the "world-is-flat" crowd would have edited out the silly "world-is-round" guy, right?

This is what keeps me from giving Wikipedia much credibility.

I know all publications are in danger of being biased by the writer. However, I can decide to place my trust on that one writer or entity. With Wikipedia, there's no way to know past agendas or the like.

Re:Knowledge is democratized? (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877861)

The vast majority of topcis are non-controvercial. While trusting Wikipedia on
controvercial topics might be dangerous, most articles are trustworthy.

That said, you should never use Wikipedia as your sole source for anything
that really matters, but for satisfying idle curiosity, Wikipedia is fine.

Re:Knowledge is democratized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878004)

That's why we keep pushing to add references to articles, so that others can check the work.

Re:Knowledge is democratized? (3, Interesting)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878056)

So...if Wikipedia had been around way back when... the "world-is-flat" crowd would have edited out the silly "world-is-round" guy, right?

No. The idea that the flat earth theory was ever widely accepted by is a myth. Auguste Compte and others laid the ground work for the "theory" in the 1800s with anti-religious sentiments that overstated the whole idea of "war" between science and religion.

The idea that Colombus was opposed by a vast Flat Earth opposition was invented by Washington Irving in his book on the explorer in 1828. French scholar Antoine-Jean Letronne furthered the myth a few years later.

[Slightly OT] On the word "wiki" (1)

asliarun (636603) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877789)

Quite some time back, mopeds in India used to be called "wikis" or "vickys". I have no clue why, for i haven't seen a moped brand with the same name. This usage has also stopped of late, and most such mopeds are simply called mopeds or scootys.

A moped, in the Indian context, is a 2-wheeled motorized vehicle, usually with a 50cc engine, with a top speed of perhaps 50kmph, and with a mileage that would put any hybrid vehicle to shame (over 100km per litre). It also has a strange design. It looks like a motorbike on an Atkins diet, and yet has pedals like a bicycle.

Anyway, just thought i'd share as the name "wiki" reminded me of this antiquated motorbike that thinks it's a bicycle.

Re:[Slightly OT] On the word "wiki" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877950)

Is a moped something else in any other context?

Vicious Psychopaths Edit Wikipedia (0, Troll)

Mentifex (187202) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877816)


The anti-Mentifex snobbery [wikipedia.org] is a prime example of what is wrong with Wikipedia -- self-appointed experts fawning over the AI Establishment and arrogantly dissing independent scholars, who make their own serious contributions but who are not part of the attention-demanding priesthood of artificial intelligence.

AI has been solved [sourceforge.net] -- but the vicious holier-than-thou Wikipaedophiles try to chase away all news of the slumbering, still awakening, solution to artificial intelligence.

AI algorithms [visitware.com] are now freely available on the 'Net, memetically spreading the news that AI has been solved, in spite of the head-in-the-sand ostriches that infest Wikipedia -- the ha-ha free-for-all encyclpedia. Now watch the same manner of nattering nabobs come in and insult any open-source AI software developer who dares to throw out the exceptional but true claim that AI has been solved.

Theory [sourceforge.net] , not software [sourceforge.net] , is where AI has been solved. People should not use the primitive nature of the AI Mind [sourceforge.net] software to debunk or dismiss the sincere claim that AI -- in theory -- has indeed been solved. Now, would a-n-y-b-o-d-y like to write a non-partisan, fair-minded Mentifex AI article on Wikipedia, or is that goal totally impossible?

Taco gets kickbacks from Wiki! (1, Troll)

supergwiz (641155) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877818)

According to WikiPedia, we should question why this story got accepted. from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot [wikipedia.org]
The Slashdot editors are sometimes accused of posting (and even preferring) stories that are, themselves, thinly-disguised trolls, which encourage large numbers of postings in response, and of accepting kickbacks to post certain stories.

Wikipedia should evolve to a Linux like model (1)

traffi (800888) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877859)

Another interesting article on Wiki at Wired, The Book Stops Here [wired.com] , discusses some interesting points regarding the difference between Wikipedia and other more traditional encyclopedias.

The article sheds a light on the interesting "power structure" of wikipedia, i.e. some users have the power to "lock" pages that are changed to often and so on.

One would think that at some stage, a more Linux like "patch accepted/rejected" system would be beneficial. It could be a two tier system, "This article was accepted by Someone" and "This is a new article and hasn't been reviewed". It would be an attepmt to get the best of both worlds, the respectability of traditional encyclopedias and the variety and width of an online wiki.

Kudos to Citizen Knowledge Patrol (3, Insightful)

Sundroid (777083) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877873)

What these Wikipedians do not realize is that they are pioneers (I'm hesitant to use the term "revolutionary soldiers") in the realm of knowledge gathering, preservation, and updating. And it is this capability to "instantaneously update", which Wikipedia has over paper-copy encyclopedias, that is the most precious characteristics about it.

The first edition of Encyclopedia Britannica came out in 1768; Wikipedia first appeared in 2001; in terms of readership, we know who is kicking whose butt.

Re:Kudos to Citizen Knowledge Patrol (1)

kronak (723456) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877941)

Good point.

Even if all encyclopedias since the first publication of Britannica have required hordes of authors, the ability to instantly update information makes Wikipedia a cut above.

wiki-wild-wild wiki-wiki-wild-wild wiki-wiki-wiki. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877975)

"wiki" has to be the dumbest name for any technology ever.

what makes it even more embarrasing that it appears to be named after the theme tune to the dreadful movie, Wild Wild West, starring Will Smith, who's tune went:

wiki-wild-wild
wiki-wiki-wild-wild
wiki-wiki-wik i-wild west.


(where wicki is a shortened form of "wicked")

somebody in a fit of madness decided that the "World Wide Web" was pretty "wicked" too, thus the "Wiki Wiki Web" was spawned.

This is a shame, as it embarrases me to point people to otherwise excellent sites such as wikipedia.

Updating Articles Feels Good! (4, Insightful)

MicroBerto (91055) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877988)

Some people wonder why they do it, but I completely understand. I live in a city [wikipedia.org] that I love dearly, but its Wiki article wasn't up to speed.

So I added to it what I could... and you know what? It felt GOOD! I hadn't really done anything worthwhile that week, and I felt that I made a great contribution to society!

So don't knock it til you try it. There's a great sense of accomplishment in giving knowledge to other people, even if it's something as trivial as finding the best burgers in town.

And now I see that someone took away my link to the best burgers in town. I'll fix that.

Re:Updating Articles Feels Good! (1)

MicroBerto (91055) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878065)

Now I see what happened. There's two articles for Columbus, OH (one says Columbus, the other says Columbus, OH)

Columbus, OH [wikipedia.org]
Columbus [wikitravel.org]

I'll have to figure out how to combine that into one. Columbus, OH is better, but the good stuff I added (like where to eat and drink) is in the Columbus one.

I'd be happy if.... (0, Troll)

HEXAN (790837) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878029)

the editors of wiki had:

1. no axes to grind 2. committment to accuracy 3. no conflicting interests 4. credentials

Oh, and btw, using wikipedia as "source" is like saying something is true because your brother-in-law says it is (and he's a dr/atty/chemist/nobel laureate/cereal box prize winner/etc....). Not credible.

It's not an encylopedia, it's a editorial page on a multitude of subjects.

Not trying to goad anyone, just making an observation.

This sig requires top secret clearance.

I think the most important Wikipedians.. (5, Insightful)

SimianOverlord (727643) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878043)

...are the ones going around cleaning up other peoples messes. Occassionally I find it entertaining to drop into Wikipedia: Vandalism in progress [wikipedia.org] and just look at the constant erosion of Wikipedia articles by schoolkids, dedicated trolls, the misinformed, or just the dogmatic.

To be honest though, it really shakes my confidence in Wikipedia articles, I mean how much is actually missed by the policemen? You've got multiple vandalisms from a few well known addresses, it's not a rare problem. A user doing one or two vandalisms in a bunch of legitimate edits is going to, on the whole, escape censure.

I really only trust articles which have been locked from editing as they have been validated repeatedly and are immune to the random vandalism that a little looked at page must inevitably gain.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...