Jump to content

User:Wikisux: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Wikisux (talk | contribs)
314 edits
Updating
rmv BLP violations
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Don't get me wrong. Wikipedia is fascinating. It's certainly fun to browse through the articles, and I've spent hours learning about obscure topics that would otherwise be inaccessible or too much trouble to research independently.
Hello.


Not infrequently, however, I'll see egregious vandalism that's escaped cleanup for days, even months:
Wretched indeed is Wikipedia. Most articles are nasty agglomerations of red shit atop green, and are quickly discounted by the discerning reader. The remainder is viewed with suspicion by all but the most careless researcher, due to the project’s very nature. Subtle vandalism, including both factual errors and outright lies, can go unreverted for months at a time. Pity the poor soul who consults it expecting, with no obvious reason to believe otherwise, a reliable source.


* Yale's mascot: "Weasel."
Everywhere is improper typography: double hyphens instead of em dashes (—), single hyphens for en dashes (–), straight quotes that should be curly (“”). Why would I trust an encyclopedia that can’t even get its punctuation right, to say nothing of its spelling and grammar?
* "Radiation poisoning, also called radiation penis, ..." (6 days old upon discovery)


If ridiculous assertions like these escape the notice of "a thousand eyeballs," then how could a reasonable person trust anything on this site that ''doesn't'' immediately set alarm bells ringing?
If Wikipedians hope ever to see their project become more than an amusing social experiment, changes must be made to Wikipedia’s structure and format. If you think I’m joking, think again.


''(to come: why other sources of information are more reliable)''
⚫
===Articles I started===
'''(or made significant contributions to)'''


This is why I feel Wikipedia is an interesting social experiment, but performs on the ugly side of mediocrity as an authoritative source of information.
⚫
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cream_puff&oldid=3833746 Cream puff] ([[Cream puff|current]]) - stubbed.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=John_Howard_Griffin&oldid=3834469 John Howard Griffin] ([[John Howard Griffin|current]]) - added biographical info and significant works
* ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25th_Hour 25th Hour]'' ([[25th Hour|current]]) - stubbed it.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Josh_Phillips&oldid=3812095 Josh Phillips] ([[Josh Phillips|current]]) - don't even know who he is, but there seemed to be a need.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esthero Esthero] ([[Esthero|current]]) - love her. she actually has a great rapport with her fans online, too.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Studio_54&oldid=3812125 Studio 54] ([[Studio 54|current]]) - just a stub.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilo Twilo] ([[Twilo|current]]) - fairly complete, I think.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=White_cliffs_of_Dover&oldid=3768071 White cliffs of Dover] ([[White cliffs of Dover|current]]) - decent start, needs additional info (at the very least) on fauna and flora, tunnel system.
⚫
* [[On teh spoke]] - damn, deleted.


⚫
===Articles I started (or rewrote from scratch)===
You may have noticed I can get a little possessive about my articles, but I try to keep my possessiveness within healthy limits.

I've seen this called "vanity." Let me tell you, I'm no stranger to that particular sin. I've awarded myself gold stars for articles I think are particularly deserving.

* [[New York City mayoral election, 2005]]
* [[Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict]]
* [[RINO]]
* [[Gifford Miller]] (gold star!)
* [[Fernando Ferrer]]
* [[Squeegee man]] (gold star!)
* [[Anderson Cooper]]
* [[Constantia Jones]]
* [[Fumoto no iro]]
⚫
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cream_puff&oldid=3833746 Cream puff] (gold star!)
**I've linked to MY original text, as I feel the current revision is somewhat lacking.
* [[Clapping]]
* [[John Howard Griffin]]
* [[25th Hour]]
* [[Josh Phillips]]
* [[Esthero]] (gold star!)
* [[Studio 54]]
* [[Twilo]] (gold star!)
* [[White cliffs of Dover]] (gold star!)
* [[Ron Reagan]]
⚫
* [[On teh spoke]]
* [[Speonk]]

Latest revision as of 13:44, 29 August 2012

Don't get me wrong. Wikipedia is fascinating. It's certainly fun to browse through the articles, and I've spent hours learning about obscure topics that would otherwise be inaccessible or too much trouble to research independently.

Not infrequently, however, I'll see egregious vandalism that's escaped cleanup for days, even months:

  • Yale's mascot: "Weasel."
  • "Radiation poisoning, also called radiation penis, ..." (6 days old upon discovery)

If ridiculous assertions like these escape the notice of "a thousand eyeballs," then how could a reasonable person trust anything on this site that doesn't immediately set alarm bells ringing?

(to come: why other sources of information are more reliable)

This is why I feel Wikipedia is an interesting social experiment, but performs on the ugly side of mediocrity as an authoritative source of information.

Articles I started (or rewrote from scratch)

[edit]

I've seen this called "vanity." Let me tell you, I'm no stranger to that particular sin. I've awarded myself gold stars for articles I think are particularly deserving.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Wikisux&oldid=509771449"