NationStates Jolt Archive

Wikipedians are the people who write and edit articles for Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedians

Have you ever written or edited a wiki? (and I do mean wikipedia.org, not the ns.goobergunch.net wikipedia.)

I just wrote my first earlier today: Instant Ramen Museum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_Ramen_Museum).

No. Next question?

Does NS Wiki count?

The museum has an instant ramen workshop allowing visitors to make their own fresh instant noodles.
Nope, can't reconcile that sentence in my head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedians

Have you ever written or edited a wiki? (and I do mean wikipedia.org, not the ns.goobergunch.net wikipedia.)

I just wrote my first earlier today: Instant Ramen Museum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_Ramen_Museum).
Yes. I use to do that quite a bit. Unfortunately, any phoole with an ax to grind can come in and change your finely crafted articles to suit his own sick intepretations anytime he so desires. I got sick of fighting them and left.

Does NS Wiki count?

LOL

(and I do mean wikipedia.org, not the ns.goobergunch.net wikipedia.)


The museum has an instant ramen workshop allowing visitors to make their own fresh instant noodles.

Nope, can't reconcile that sentence in my head.

You get to make your own instant noodles. They are fresh in that you've just made them. Thanks, I'm clarifying this now.

LOL

Meh, it happens when you are posting at nearly four in the morning.

Meh, it happens when you are posting at nearly four in the morning.
:) And it even happens in broad day light (as evidenced by the typo in the poll).

I haven't yet written any full articles, but I do edit spelling/grammar mistakes when I see them. However, I constantly use Wikipedia to look up subjects, several dozen times per day. It's easily my favourite website, ever.

I wrote and edited a couple of articles on the PartiWiki (http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/wiki/index.php/Main_Page)
check out the Kirlawa Green party and the International Greens!

As of today, yes. There's quite a detailed entry for my city's rail system (it even goes into detail about the train set types (which most people don't give a damn about, though I do), and I've been adding information on a few local stations that were missing.

I've edited a few articles - and added one of my own

The last piece I edited was the article on Kathryn Janeway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Janeway) - and I'm in the process of re-editing it to include more information.

Yeah. I edited some of the Hong Kong articles.

I did some extensive grammar/spelling based editing on an article. Unfortunately, fixing the article completely would've meant rewriting it completely and people who had contributed would not stand for that. I gave up trying to fix it when some people put their improperly written sentences and paragraphs back and I realized it was beyond hope.

I dont like wikipedia very much. Its usefulness is very limited, and although it is still quite useful for certain things too many people rely on it for accurate information, something which it sorely lacks.

Wikipedia is not considered a valid source as it has limited amounts of editors.. and you don't know what credibility the people have writing those articles. As far as I'm concerned it is a big Op/ed.

I often bring up this article:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66210,00.html

Wikipedia is not academicaly acceptabel as a reference.

Wikipedia is not academicaly acceptabel as a reference.

I'd say it is for factual information, like something in mathematics or chemistry. They don't have the same bias issues as other fields, so I use their information quite often (it also links to external sites which have even more information). For other stuff, I read them only for interest, and also practice my German on the German Language Wiki.

Wikipedia is not considered a valid source as it has limited amounts of editors.. and you don't know what credibility the people have writing those articles. As far as I'm concerned it is a big Op/ed.

I often bring up this article:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66210,00.html


Umm...you mean an unlimited amout of editors. That's actually the problem isnt it? Everyone is an editor. Wikipedia has an unlimited amount of editors who often disagree or quarrel with each other and who may or may not have any clue what they are writing about.

I did mean unlimited. And yes that's a problem. Also you don't know about the credentials of those writing the articles.

I'd say it is for factual information, like something in mathematics or chemistry. They don't have the same bias issues as other fields, so I use their information quite often (it also links to external sites which have even more information). For other stuff, I read them only for interest, and also practice my German on the German Language Wiki.

They are not academically acceptable. That doesn't mean some of the articles might be factual but without additional research you won't know if they are factually correct or not. Why not use a source you know is reliable?

I'd say it is for factual information, like something in mathematics or chemistry. They don't have the same bias issues as other fields, so I use their information quite often (it also links to external sites which have even more information). For other stuff, I read them only for interest, and also practice my German on the German Language Wiki.

If your college professor accepts wikipedia as a valid source of information, I would consider changing to a different university if I were you. It is not an academically accepted source of information, and that is a fact not a matter of opinion.

They are not academically acceptable. That doesn't mean some of the articles might be factual but without additional research you won't know if they are factually correct or not. Why not use a source you know is reliable?

I usually do, but for simple reference (like the formula for the Zeta function or Fermat's Little Theorem) I use them. They make looking up trivial data much faster than having to search through multiple sites.

If your college professor accepts wikipedia as a valid source of information, I would consider changing to a different university if I were you. It is not an academically accepted source of information, and that is a fact not a matter of opinion.

I asked several of my professors about it, and they gave me a sharp answer... "absolutely not". And they told me the same reason. Even one professor had to flunk someone on the essay for using it as a source.

i have a page about my nation on there..but I DONT UNDERSTAND why other people are allowed to edit my page..Someone could give me alot of trouble if they take the time to f*ck with my page and I dont like it.

its MY NATION!! i can make up whatever the hell i want, i think wikpedia is taking it too far sometimes.

i have a page about my nation on there..but I DONT UNDERSTAND why other people are allowed to edit my page..Someone could give me alot of trouble if they take the time to f*ck with my page and I dont like it.

its MY NATION!! i can make up whatever the hell i want, i think wikpedia is taking it too far sometimes.

Please tell me you put your nation on NSWiki, not Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is full of crap as it is, never mind adding fictional nations to it's database.

That said, I do hope to edit an article one day, and try to remove grammar problems.

i have a page about my nation on there..but I DONT UNDERSTAND why other people are allowed to edit my page..Someone could give me alot of trouble if they take the time to f*ck with my page and I dont like it.

its MY NATION!! i can make up whatever the hell i want, i think wikpedia is taking it too far sometimes.

Hopefully you are talking about the ns.goobergunch.net wikipedia, which I have specifically said this thread is not about twice before. I sincerly hope you aren't posting RPed data on your nation on wikipedia.org.

Hopefully you are talking about the ns.goobergunch.net wikipedia, which I have specifically said this thread is not about twice before. I sincerly hope you aren't posting RPed data on your nation on wikipedia.org.

Actually, I don't think (s)he is:

Clicky. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Agnostic+Deeishpeople&go=Go)

Wikipedia is not academicaly acceptabel as a reference.

nor is any other non-specialized encyclopedia

I should think that most people have enough sense to avoid using Wiki as an academic source. It's fun to read to get an idea on something (just got done spending 30 minutes reading the Stonehenge article and related articles). I've used it for unimportant research (ie: "I need to reference an ancient language, hmm... lemmie check Wiki), but I certainly wouldn't use it if I was still in school.

I'm far too lazy to write anything, but I use it for information on anything I need. Libraries? Pah!

I've edited a couple of articles about Dublin, but I've never contributed an article.

I do maintain my stuff at goobergunch, although under a different account now. I used to have onw on wikipedia, but I lost the password. :(

I should think that most people have enough sense to avoid using Wiki as an academic source. It's fun to read to get an idea on something (just got done spending 30 minutes reading the Stonehenge article and related articles). I've used it for unimportant research (ie: "I need to reference an ancient language, hmm... lemmie check Wiki), but I certainly wouldn't use it if I was still in school.

Exactly.

It's handy if you need quick information, but you do need to check the facts with other sources.

But never mind that damn Wikipedia, Uncyclopedia (http://uncyclopedia.org) is TEH RESOURCE!!!!11

If your college professor accepts wikipedia as a valid source of information, I would consider changing to a different university if I were you. It is not an academically accepted source of information, and that is a fact not a matter of opinion.

They don't accept it as a primary source (obviously), but it's fine if you include it as a secondary source with evidence that you followed up on references in the article. I asked about it a while back and it was fine...In fact, it's a form of plagiarism if you follow up on information you discover within a wikipedia article without referencing it. I found it useful in history especially, when the name of a relatively obscure person pops up and I am confused as to who they are.

i keep trying to add onew peice of usefull information and they keep deleting it !

Still don't think any phoole with an agenda can do with Wikipaedia as he chooses?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=436453 I rest my case. :headbang: