WARNING about Wikipedia

Post Reply New Topic

WARNING: Wikipedia is NOT monitored for accuracy. Anyone can go into it and say anything they want about anything, EVEN IF it's NOT true! I was reading on Wikipedia about "machines taking over the world" in 2050 and it scared me so bad I THREW AWAY my computer and cancelled my internet service. WHAT A FOOL I was to believe that bulls*** they said! Maybe it was true maybe it wasn't. But how was I to know? My MR/DD Service Facilitator at the time listens to the radio a lot, and she heard about Wikipedia NOT being monitored for accuracy. I'm just telling everybody...BE CAREFUL with Wikipedia. A lot of the scary and disappointing information contained therein MIGHT NOT be true. Plus some of the positive reassuring information may be "too good to be true". JUST BE CAREFUL EVERYBODY

Dang, that stinks...

We aren't allowed to use wikipedia for research at school, because of the fact that anyone can change it...

You didn't know that?!

Why do you think it has the term wiki infront of it...

That's the problem of something so open-ended. It's based on the premise that people will try to do something good, but sometimes there will be a rotten apple here and there.

By the way, there was a scandal recently in the JFK page, that someone edited the info and wrote "my roommate John Q. shot JFK" ...

Steven Colbert of the "Colbert Report" recently asked the people watching the show to go into Wikipidia and say that there was a rapid increase in the elephant population,and they did.The guy who started Wiki came on his show and asked him not to do that anymore,(actually I thought it was pretty funny,I love that show).He did say that they do check and change things that they find to be incorrect.They cant keep off all lunitics but they do make an effort(according to him).

No level of editorial control will protect the paranoid from their own shadows.

If I need information I usually need it to be objective reality. Like a example is a chemical I was looking up on wikipedia. I did a complete secondary search of every detailed reference in the wikipedia page. Downloaded the US patents related to it. And looked at an insane number of google hits on the keyword. Posted
my preliminary results on another forum site seeking more input.
Thats how you use wikipedia.

And machine will take over its only a matter of time. Its evolution.

Well, it depends on the type of article. Wikipedia is reasonably accurate on most historical things, science, biographies, etc. but there are also some pages on weird theories such as you describe. And although anybody can edit it, there are people watching for vandalism and nonsense (I myself do this in several topics I'm involved in) and material that has no verifiable refs eventually gets deleted. Like anything else on the Net, you should cross-check with other sources and not just rely on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is pretty good and in depth in the serious sections like history. It is sourced and monitored well. And if you really did all that s**t after reading something on the internet, you have bigger problems to worry about than Wikipedia.

Well, I am disillusioned......I thought Wikipedia was tantamount to God (minus the religious aspect).

WHAT IN THIS WORLD IS REAL NOW? I want to fling my body into the river. Deep despair. Trust no one!! !!

Separately, but related: How do you know when a NT is lying? Answer: Their lips are moving.

Ok, that was a little melodramatic. Right now I might be expering an emotion, but I have do not know what. Or I do not care. No, I profoundly do not care.

To know Wikipedia is not "real" is sort of like finding out there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny (minus the religious aspect).

Someone right now say something comforting to me: Hurt/sick Lab Pet <need fainting couch> Comply

and you just realized wikipedia is not always accurate.

Foxnews was just busted editing stuff TODAY

companys have been busted editing each others entries

People have even posted on George Bush's page the he is the second reincarnation of Hitler

Wikipedia ***IS*** monitored for accuracy! Perhaps by MILLIONS! SO WHAT???? They're not perfect, not necessarily smart, not working full time, etc... AND, even if they were perfect, the sheer size makes such a feat IMPOSSIBLE to do 100% and still keep the ideal in mind.

There IS, after all, a reason why it wasn't done earlier.

NOW, as for computers taking over the world????

1. They CAN'T do it! Even if they had the wisdom, etc... even if they could communicate with the robots and vehicles and cameras, visual control is limited.
2. They CAN'T do it! Even if they could see so well, they don't know what they see.
3. They CAN'T do it! Even if they know what they see, they don't have the wisdom.
4. They CAN'T do it! Even if they had wisdom, idiots like Bill Gates would make sure they couldn't for long!

Despite all the hype you hear, and shows like wargames, even the fastest biggest most expensive supercomputer ever made is NO smarter than your watch! FASTER? YES! More memory? YES! More flexible? YES! Smarter? NO WAY!! !!

BTW I don't know how fast computers will get, but Intel, for example, is ALREADY using nearly every trick anyone has ever come up with. Many are DECADES old, and were abandoned earlier because they found out how to push the technology to its limit. That technique was exhausted in the mid 1980s, so they are back to the tricks. This means it is getting harder to just turn up the clock speed, etc... to make processors faster.

Wikipedia is a good site for some information but you gotta take it with a grain of salt if it's not sourced.

"Separately, but related: How do you know when a NT is lying? Answer: Their lips are moving."

I try to avoid such cynicism, but damn if it doesn't feel true! Thanks for the belly laugh.

There have been a number of repeated tests done to prove the INACCURACY of wikipedia, but it actually ended up being proven pretty accurate. For one trial, a professor went through and put deliberately inaccurate (but not necessarily "ridiculous") "facts" into several lesser-researched topics with the goal of showing how anyone can corrupt the information. But within 2-3 days, he found that his inaccuracies had been corrected. Yes, wikipedia does go through an editing process. Anything you put up is published immediately, but the main editors of that topic have the ability to go back and see what revisions have been made, deleting the hacks and joke-edits. Many of these editors are either experts or actual wikipedia staff. More and more it's becoming clear that all these people with Wikipedia conspiracy theories are just paranoid or ill-informed.

Wiki is actually based out of my town and a friend of mine got one of the coveted paying jobs there recently, she said they're craaaaazy about making you check and re-check and so on... mainly to prevent that kind of non-sense.
I bet the OP's article was one relating to that stupid "Singularity" theory of technology becoming smarter than man...