der Berliner 3,247 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 It all depends on the topic. You do get high-quality stuff at some sites and the German pages are usually well administrated. The petty war amongst the support is annoying and hence you would think that somesuch is being kept under a lid, with neutral people doing the articles according to suggestiones et al in the discussion/talk section. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 wiki can be a great webtool. it beats most encyclopedia on independent accuracy checks. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 True, I use it for things I already know, but have forgotten in the mists of time and booze induced neuron destrution. Dates, names, places ect, ect... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 wikipedia and accuracy? Are you totally shitfaced? hahahhahaha 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 True, I use it for things I already know, but have forgotten in the mists of time and booze induced neuron destrution. Dates, names, places ect, ect... i’m total flabbergasted that you would trust Wikipedia for such things. Or are you joking? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Appalachia Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html Why would he be joking? I thought everyone knew Wikipedia was decent but not great in terms of accuracy - nothing more, nothing less. In any event, we can probably all agree that hundreds of thousands of internet users (perhaps wrongly) use it as a quick, first line of reference... So it does matter that our club's page is howlingly inaccurate at the moment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html Why would he be joking? I thought everyone knew Wikipedia was decent but not great in terms of accuracy - nothing more, nothing less. In any event, we can probably all agree that hundreds of thousands of internet users (perhaps wrongly) use it as a quick, first line of reference... So it does matter that our club's page is howlingly inaccurate at the moment. I think that's what you call an oxymoron. I can only assume people that believe anything on there are very new to Z interwebz It's a joke 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 More from Wikipedia - Talk Rangers F.C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rangers_F.C.#Complaint_about_.27Rangers_Football_Club_was_a_football_club.27 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Appalachia Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 More from Wikipedia - Talk Rangers F.C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rangers_F.C.#Complaint_about_.27Rangers_Football_Club_was_a_football_club.27 Yeah, the talk page is hilarious and a bit fascinating. People have done a good job talking sense into what is quite obviously the other lot. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.