Comments for "Wikipedia: History's Head-On Collision with Editorial" Blog at VideoSift.com

By schmawy

schmawy (http://schmawy.videosift.com) — Mon, 19 May 2008 18:46:32 -0700

Like someone said "a great place to start your research". Or the Onion article "Wikipedia celebrates it's 700th anniversary" It's faulty, no doubt. This is a fair expose' from what I remember.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Truth-About-Wikipedia

You said in the comments (your reputation for being difficult to understand is clearly undeserved, incidentally)

"Wikipedia a great tool for for fans and enthusiasts, who have researched their passionate interests, and nefarious at best, for anything but subjective editorials-It's a playing ground for defective process, and a catalyst for a type of newsspeak that assists in the dumbing-down of the masses, and breeding ground for revisionist history.
A soap-box for the mentally exhausted.

listen to the wisdom in the comment beginning at -34:00"

I agree in large part, but I think "revisionist history" could go both ways. It's good to challenge the history books. Doubleplus good.

By Farhad2000

Farhad2000 (http://farhad.videosift.com) — Mon, 19 May 2008 21:56:16 -0700

Wikipedia is great. There is nothing better out there to do basic research or information gathering.

By choggie

choggie (http://www.videosift.com/member/choggie) — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:38:29 -0700

yer right farhad, in the exercise, is the development of the process.. my beef is the cut and paste, never a printed word read crowd....and the denture-grinding answers to some personal encounters here on the sift, in the form of some wiki link-meh. Walmart knowledge is cheap-gathering information involves more than exposure, passion, or addiction-

By Fedquip

Fedquip (http://fedquip.videosift.com) — Tue, 20 May 2008 02:14:19 -0700

Wikipedia has more problems then you can ever imagine, if you are interested in Wikimedia and its past present and future I invite you to check out this blog. It's from an ex-top wikipedian, the guy who started veropedia he is a true Internet research legend. Wikipedia, for as massive as it is, has barely any moderation, does not fact check and just assumes everything will balance out in time.

Problem is, the average interenetter doesn't know that...You mention wikipedia to vast members of the population and they will tell you they didn't even know wikipedia was edited by "anyone"

By choggie

choggie (http://www.videosift.com/member/choggie) — Tue, 20 May 2008 09:09:07 -0700

Thanks Jeff, much appreciated-

By schmawy

schmawy (http://schmawy.videosift.com) — Tue, 20 May 2008 14:20:01 -0700

Great for fleshing out those video descriptions here on the Sift. I'd be really nervous using it for a paper, though.

By choggie

choggie (http://www.videosift.com/member/choggie) — Sat, 24 May 2008 21:59:44 -0700

yeah, hard to smoke or even hold the weed with it....

By choggie

choggie (http://www.videosift.com/member/choggie) — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:30:19 -0700

Wikipedian. 1.horseshit described or inferred by all parties involved, as the real deal......

but great for music info.....