Thread: Why I Don't Trust Wiki

Old news, Jet. Worth repeating though.

Interestingly, TAT are on a full-on crusade to tidy up any editable web sources, such as Wiki. I read an article the other day but forget the link.

Wiki is good when you need it for something innocent. For instance, I wasted to read up on octopuses the other day & it was brilliant. You can't fault it for things like that as there's nothing else like it on the web.

Read up on the CIA, Fox or anything like that & you can take it with a pinch of salt

Wiki is run by gay commies and black pimps.

Go here for objective, impartial information.

"Facebook" is funded by the CIA.

Originally Posted by stroller

Wiki is run by gay commies and black pimps.

Go here for objective, impartial information.

Good lead. I worship Conservapedia. Of course, this is after my God, who is in Heaven. He comes first.

Hey, Stroller, thanks for that link. Perhaps you can do a web review of Obama from both sites.

Teakdoor is partly funded by a militant wing of the Salvation Army

Why is there no Teakdoor entry in Wiki.?

Anyway, putting free, easily accesible information in the hands of the common people is downright dangerous. Just ask Uncle Joe. Or Adolf. Or Dubya.

Originally Posted by stroller

Wiki is run by gay commies and black pimps.

Go here for objective, impartial information.

what an amazing read!

'United Nations - Islam's Gestapo'

'How much more pain must Americans endure before our representatives in Washington let oil companies punch a few holes in the Alaskan tundra or the Northern Plains?'

are americans really this stupid?

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Never have and never will, because it is built by anyone who wants to make a "statement"

as opposed to what?

don't ask difficult questions Nick. It's Monday morning

Originally Posted by Shitman

Wiki is good when you need it for something innocent.

Agree. Lots of good stuff in the "innocent" category. When it comes to politics or religion it is far from agenda free but what site is? I try to read as many sources as I can get my hands on to form my opinions.

Wiki makes a good first stop to get an overview on many subjects, it does have its limitations though, quality varies greatly as one would expect from a project of this nature.

One has to use one's own judgment to assess how accurate and useful it is on each occasion.

Originally Posted by stroller

One has to use one's own judgment to assess how accurate and useful it is on each occasion.

As one must do with any other web page.

I suspect rather than 'promoting tourism', they are more concerned with information which could be detrimental to Thailand's image leaking out on the internet.

What else do we expect from a country that keeps such illustrious company as Nigeria, Djibouti and Krygzstan next to it on the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index?

Originally Posted by DaveRobin

are americans really this stupid?

Only the greedy, nearsighted ones

Originally Posted by EmperorTud

I suspect rather than 'promoting tourism', they are more concerned with information which could be detrimental to Thailand's image leaking out on the internet.

What else do we expect from a country that keeps such illustrious company as Nigeria, Djibouti and Krygzstan next to it on the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index?

Seems like they already did quite a good job on the german wikipedia. It is quite a lot of work to clean all the stuff up so it does not sound too positive.

^ That was probably Stroller at work.

Unlikely. Now I found out what happened with the entries on thai prime ministers. Someone just translated the biographies from the tha government website. Not only are they very uncritic of course but he made some translation mistakes too so I doubt it was Stroller.

I've never understood some peoples antipathy to Wiki.

It is a free, comprehensive, easily accesible on-line encyclopedia/ database that puts information in the hands of anyone that cares to do a Google search. It has succeeded in this admirably. If I seek to learn about something, Wiki is often my first port of call, followed by other sources if I am interested to research more thoroughly. Most of it's entries that I have read are accessible,and balanced, and often contain a good amount of detail.

What grounds are there for antipathy? Keeping information and knowledge out of the hands of the public is a Dark Age philosophy. I can only think of three-

Intellectual snobs, who would prefer information kept out of the hands of the public unless it deals exclusively in primary sources and full academic standard footnoting and so on (actually it mostly does). They have their Ivory towers to keep them happy, but their attitude is Dark Age scholar monk, or at least Victorian academic snobbishness to me.

Right wing Loonies- they don't want people being able to access any information without a right wing slant on it. They would prefer people stay ignorant- and they have a point. Informed people do pose a threat to zealots, and bigots. They have their Conservapedia as their salve (read it, what a joke. You'll soon understand the level of mental advancement they come from), and their mindest belongs firmly in Dark Ages zealotry.

Criticism of some content, or of times when Wiki has been 'duped'.- these can be valid. Drawing on the wide amount of contributors and souce material it does, Wiki is not perfect. But on average it is very good, and hoaxes and biased stuff tends not to last very long at all.

Originally Posted by Fabian

Not only are they very uncritic of course but he made some translation mistakes too so I doubt it was Stroller.

I can not read Thai script.

I have edited some Thailand pages, they tend to be erratic.
There obviuosly isn't much knowledge nor interest there.

I thought the Wiki stuff on Thai archaeological sites and historic parks was quite good. Haven't looked up any political stuff- but out of interest, I'll see what they have to say on the Thamassat 'incident'.

It seems fairly straightforward:

6 October 1976 Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is what Conservapedia has to say:

Showing below 0 results starting with #1.
No page title matches

No page text matches



When Conservapedia first started you could get to it by typing "moronapedia.com"