NationStates Jolt Archive

I should be getting on with work, but instead, I've spent this morning and most of yesterday and last night editing Wikipedia. I've discovered that the French Wikipedia has huge lacks when it comes to Pacific countries, so I've begun the herculean task of amending to that. :p I've been filling in some articles and creating others (including articles on Torres Strait Islanders, the Stolen Generations, Fiji's Great Council of Chiefs, Mahendra Chaudhry and Manasseh Sogavare).

There's still a lot to be done. The problem is, it's becoming addictive. That nagging (and rather silly) feeling that the French Wikipedia absolutely needs articles on the 2006 riots in Tonga, the 2006 riots in the Solomon Islands, along with articles on such famous people as Snyder Rini and Timoci Bavadra. :p

It's probably due to the fact that NSwiki is down (well, uneditable), so I can't waste my time editing that.

So... Do you work on Wikipedia? Does it waste a lot of your time? :p

So... Do you work on Wikipedia? Does it waste a lot of your time? :pNot really. I've only done a little bit about the anachronisms and wrong developments in the Red Alert series.

I've tried to correct vandalism once or twice but I was beaten to it

My latest time-waster has been TV Tropes archive binges.

Only reverting vandalism once or twice,... nothing to add.

Wikiquote is a far bigger time waster than Wikipedia.

I like multiple choice polls. They help me waste my time far more than editing Wikipedia does. Which doesn't, incidentally. I do spend a lot of time reading it, though.

Wikiquote is a far bigger time waster than Wikipedia.

It would be, if I succumbed to temptation and browsed it more often. I've never edited it, though. And its lack of references is annoying.

I like multiple choice polls. They help me waste my time

You're not supposed to do that, you silly boy! Or girl. Or person of ambiguous gender. Or whatever you are.

I like multiple choice polls. They help me waste my time far more than editing Wikipedia does. Which doesn't, incidentally. I do spend a lot of time reading it, though.

Reading Wikipedia can be such an amazing and fascinating time-sink if you do it right.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_problem_with_wikipedia.png

I've been meaning to fill in some of the blanks in the sociology sections but keep getting put off by the long "writing good article guides".

It's funny though, Uni students use wikipedia so much when they start a new topic but they can never admit this to their lecturers less they be arked down.

there are a few articles of interest to me, I try to keep them clean and when I am having a bad day I go through and source things, it makes me feel better.

I've been meaning to fill in some of the blanks in the sociology sections but keep getting put off by the long "writing good article guides".

Just ignore those. I do. I just write articles, and if someone isn't happy with the format, they can edit it.


It's funny though, Uni students use wikipedia so much when they start a new topic but they can never admit this to their lecturers less they be arked down.

I tell my students not to just take information from Wikipedia without cross-checking it against another source. The main value of Wikipedia for students isn't so much the content of the articles as the links to sources.

It amuses me when students copy/paste big chunks from Wikipedia into their essay, and think I won't notice. Then they look chagrined when I hand them back a nice big Fail. :p (Not that many of them ever do that.)

there are a few articles of interest to me, I try to keep them clean and when I am having a bad day I go through and source things, it makes me feel better.

You have an... unusual way of boosting your own morale! :eek:

I created the following articles:

Albert Kalonji
Pierre Mulele
Jean Nguza Karl-i-Bond
Authenticité (Zaire)
Sheldon B. Vance
Les Trois Glorieuses
LGBT rights in Uganda
Human rights in Chad
Nicaragua Betrayed

I contributed significantly to the following articles:

Mobutu Sese Seko
Alfredo Stroessner

Just some spelling errors here and there. Most of my wiki time is spent going from article to article, as illustrated in the XKCD comic above.

You have an... unusual way of boosting your own morale! :eek:

the only time I really get down is when I have time to think, so if I fill that time with something else, then I don't have to think. healthy? no, but it's cheaper than booze (in more ways than one)

Wikipedia is a horribly opinonated POS wannabe dictionary.

The most outrageous thing about it is that it *still* manages to be useful :mad:

During the last world cup I was updating football scores within 15 seconds of a goal being scored. It got to the point where Wikipedia was faster than the official website :D

Wikipedia is a horribly opinonated POS wannabe dictionary.

[citation needed]

Gah, I've lost entire hours to wikipedia. I once searched for English Medieval Church building for an essay I was writing, only to looked up several hours later and realised I was reading about Renaissance mercenaries in the Holy Roman Empire.

[citation needed]

LOL!

[citation needed]
Critics have questioned Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, citing its open nature. The criticism is centered on its susceptibility to vandalism, such as the insertion of profanities or random letters into articles, and the addition of false or unverified information; uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies; and for favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia)

Critics have questioned Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, citing its open nature. The criticism is centered on its susceptibility to vandalism, such as the insertion of profanities or random letters into articles, and the addition of false or unverified information; uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies; and for favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia)The hilarity of that is that you'r quoting wikipedia to make your point.

Reading Wikipedia can be such an amazing and fascinating time-sink if you do it right.

Tell me about it. I once looked up their article on the USS Excelsior (I'm a nerd, I admit it), and I somehow ended up on a page about organisms.

Speaking of which, we should have a Wikipedia game! One person navigates through ten links from one page, and then another person has to try and figure out how they arrived there! FUN! Yes? No? STFU!

Tell me about it. I once looked up their article on the USS Excelsior (I'm a nerd, I admit it), and I somehow ended up on a page about organisms.

Speaking of which, we should have a Wikipedia game! One person navigates through ten links from one page, and then another person has to try and figure out how they arrived there! FUN! Yes? No? STFU!

That's not the wiki game. The wiki game is where you pick two random articles on wikipedia and whoever gets from the first to the second via the least number of articles wins.

The hilarity of that is that you'r quoting wikipedia to make your point.

Yes, like I said earlier:
The most outrageous thing about it is that it *still* manages to be useful :mad:

That's not the wiki game. The wiki game is where you pick two random articles on wikipedia and whoever gets from the first to the second via the least number of articles wins.

I didn't know there was already a Wiki game. :(

I thought I was being original. :(

Leave me alone! :(

I didn't know there was already a Wiki game. :(

I thought I was being original. :(

Leave me alone! :(

Never! I'll hound you to the ends of the earth! Or until I get bored, whatever.


*wanders off*

Never! I'll hound you to the ends of the earth! Or until I get bored, whatever.


*wanders off*

Woohoo! I win!

Sorry I was away for a few minutes; I was changing this article (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soqosoqo_Duavata_ni_Lewenivanua) from a two-line stub into a proper article. :p

Jesus... H... Christ!

You really do waste a lot of time there, don't you?!

[citation needed]

LOL

Gah, I've lost entire hours to wikipedia. I once searched for English Medieval Church building for an essay I was writing, only to looked up several hours later and realised I was reading about Renaissance mercenaries in the Holy Roman Empire.

Haven't we all. :)

Sorry I was away for a few minutes; I was changing this article (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soqosoqo_Duavata_ni_Lewenivanua) from a two-line stub into a proper article. :p

Jesus... H... Christ!

You really do waste a lot of time there, don't you?!

Just done another one (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timoci_Bavadra). :)

Just done another one (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timoci_Bavadra). :)

By god! You've written an article in some kind of bizarre dead language!

(SPOT THE FUTURAMA REFERENCE!)

I believe you when you say that you spend too much time on Wikipedia. You can stop now!

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_problem_with_wikipedia.png

It has an article about wet t-shirt contests?
*searches*

By Hack, you're right.:eek:... :)

Yes there is, and I even knew that there's a Tok Pisin version!

That. Well, guess who set me on that track.. ;P

I should be getting on with work, but instead, I've spent this morning and most of yesterday and last night editing Wikipedia. I've discovered that the French Wikipedia has huge lacks when it comes to Pacific countries, so I've begun the herculean task of amending to that. :p I've been filling in some articles and creating others (including articles on Torres Strait Islanders, the Stolen Generations, Fiji's Great Council of Chiefs, Mahendra Chaudhry and Manasseh Sogavare).

There's still a lot to be done. The problem is, it's becoming addictive. That nagging (and rather silly) feeling that the French Wikipedia absolutely needs articles on the 2006 riots in Tonga, the 2006 riots in the Solomon Islands, along with articles on such famous people as Snyder Rini and Timoci Bavadra. :p

It's probably due to the fact that NSwiki is down (well, uneditable), so I can't waste my time editing that.

So... Do you work on Wikipedia? Does it waste a lot of your time? :p
Wait until you do all that hard work and someone reverts it because a first person account in a magazine in 1949 trumps a governing body's research. And people wonder why there are so many mistakes.

I believe you when you say that you spend too much time on Wikipedia. You can stop now!

I have. For today at least. :p

I should be getting on with work, but instead, I've spent this morning and most of yesterday and last night editing Wikipedia.
Exhibit A: A productive French worker.

There's still a lot to be done. The problem is, it's becoming addictive. That nagging (and rather silly) feeling that the French Wikipedia absolutely needs articles on the 2006 riots in Tonga, the 2006 riots in the Solomon Islands,
Yes. I feel so incomplete lacking a univeristy course level in depth dive into Tongan politics.

along with articles on such famous people as Snyder Rini and Timoci Bavadra. :p
So famous that 99% of the world's people have never even heard of them! While we're at it, let's edit the wikipedia article on the definition of the word "Famous"!
It's probably due to the fact that NSwiki is down (well, uneditable), so I can't waste my time editing that.
Perhaps return to your jerb?
So... Do you work on Wikipedia? Does it waste a lot of your time? :p
No but I do spend alot of time on it reading the articles. However, I hardly consider this time wasted as I usually incorporate this information into my studies, conversations with friends and family or into online debates.

Yes. I feel so incomplete lacking a univeristy course level in depth dive into Tongan politics.


So famous that 99% of the world's people have never even heard of them! While we're at it, let's edit the wikipedia article on the definition of the word "Famous"!


You'll need to work either on your irony detector or your irony marker.

As Wikipedia has no article on me, I dismiss all of its content as irrelevant. I can't be bothered to edit it anyway, since I have nothing useful to add and when I do, somebody else has beaten me to it.

Exhibit A: A productive French worker.

Yes. I feel so incomplete lacking a univeristy course level in depth dive into Tongan politics.

So famous that 99% of the world's people have never even heard of them! While we're at it, let's edit the wikipedia article on the definition of the word "Famous"!

Perhaps return to your jerb?

No but I do spend alot of time on it reading the articles. However, I hardly consider this time wasted as I usually incorporate this information into my studies, conversations with friends and family or into online debates.

Your irony detector is seriously broken.

As Wikipedia has no article on me, I dismiss all of its content as irrelevant. I can't be bothered to edit it anyway, since I have nothing useful to add and when I do, somebody else has beaten me to it.
The Wikipedia article

New Czardas, a nation a no significance, who has 59 posts on jolt.co.uk

References:
Post by New Czardas

Editing "New Czardas"

The Wikipedia article

{{unreferenced|December 2007}}
New Czardas, a nation a no significance, who has 55 posts on jolt.co.uk

References:
Post by New Czardas <!--Link needed-->

{{jolt-stub}}

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/8936/nctbdyz4.jpg

No, I didn't actually save it. :p

E-cookie to anyone who creates the template {{jolt-stub}} (text: This jolt.co.uk online gaming-related article is a stub. You can help by expanding it[little arrow].)

As Wikipedia has no article on me, I dismiss all of its content as irrelevant. I can't be bothered to edit it anyway, since I have nothing useful to add and when I do, somebody else has beaten me to it.

wait, waht? Czardas!?

Anyhow, um. I just get lost in the whole whirling wiki-vortex occasionally.

Tip: NEVER go near articles even remotely related to comic books. Seriously.

Wikipedia sucks. Kirk Fogg (the guy who hosted Legends of the Hidden Temple) tried to fix a mistake about himself on the Wikipedia page dedicated to him, and they reverted it on the basis that "you can't make a biography of yourself".

Facking morons, I tell you.

Wikipedia sucks. Kirk Fogg (the guy who hosted Legends of the Hidden Temple) tried to fix a mistake about himself on the Wikipedia page dedicated to him, and they reverted it on the basis that "you can't make a biography of yourself".

Facking morons, I tell you.

"They"? Who is "they"?

"They"? Who is "they"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Fogg&limit=500&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kirk_Fogg#Birthplace

That's not the wiki game. The wiki game is where you pick two random articles on wikipedia and whoever gets from the first to the second via the least number of articles wins.

Alright, get from this article:

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

to this Article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

And I demand proof.

On topic: I love reading Wikipedia, as a basis of information for my fictional worlds. It doesn't have to be accurate, just give me a platform to jump from for a basis of foundation to describe my fictional worlds.

That's not the wiki game. The wiki game is where you pick two random articles on wikipedia and whoever gets from the first to the second via the least number of articles wins.

There are a billion wiki games. In school, you used to be able to go the Mac Lab during a free or lunch, and race on Wikipedia.

There are a billion wiki games. In school, you used to be able to go the Mac Lab during a free or lunch, and race on Wikipedia.

lol every single computer in my school is blocked. Too many people vandalize.

"They"? Who is "they"?

The Pedantic Wikipedia Consensus(tm)

Wikipedia is not about facts, truth or usable information - Wikipedia is defined by bureaucracy, personal interests, popular vote, public opinion and people in power, a clique of respected/vocal users, rather than by the merit and factuality of the added/existing content.

Even if you were to add to an article something that's unequivocally true and relevant you can still be edited away on a technicality, rules lawyering or, gasp, the 'consensus' - A wikiswarm of concerned and vocal users who would enjoy a collective grouphug rather than regard facts and quality of content as paramount.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Fogg&limit=500&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kirk_Fogg#Birthplace

You'll note that the article now states his correct birthplace.

Like everywhere, you find many idiots on Wikipedia. Due to the simple fact that a huge number of human beings are profoundly stupid - their stupidity inhanced by wilfull ignorance and arrogance. However, when a source for a fact is presented, you can see that it leads to the article containing that verified fact.

Many Wikipedians go to some effort to make sure that articles are factual, and accurately share their knowledge with readers. Bear them in mind when you feel like ranting against Wikipedia in general.

Just some spelling errors here and there. Most of my wiki time is spent going from article to article, as illustrated in the XKCD comic above.Yeah, that's basically what I do (except I also correct the grammatical errors too.) :)

Editing Wikipedia is a massive time waster, because there are far too many content-Nazis on there that have a specific agenda to promote.

People will write all kinds of things there that aren't supported by any credible sources whatsoever, and then if you post something that is actually true, they will delete it if you don't have a "source". Now, that source can be as worthless as you like (you can cite some teenage girl's fanblog for all they care), but you have to have a source. I actually had one person tell me they did not care whether what I was posting was true, they just cared whether I had a source. And if you do provide credible sources, they will delete what you posted if it conflicts with their agenda and claim it was "not relevant" or "not of sufficient interest".

What is pathetic is some of it seems to be inspired by fear of litigation for defamation. But the approach is mindless, because defamation is only defamation if it's untrue (so if you can back up what you are saying, it's not defamation) and the fact that someone had a "source" will be no defence to a defamation suit if that source turns out to be untrue: republication of a lie can still make you guilty of defamation.

Alright, get from this article:

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

to this Article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

And I demand proof.
Did it in four.
1. From Samurai Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism).
2. From Buddhism to Buddhism and Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science)
3. From Buddishm and Science to Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics)
4. And (finally) from Introduction to Quantum Mechanics to Many-Worlds Interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds)
Far too easy.

I've done some wikipedia edits, but most were in the discussion area. I did,m however, fix a couple typos, do a couple anti-grafitti reverts, and wind up in an edit war on the Dragonite article with someone who not only used an utterly awful strategy but made most priests appear receptive to new ideas in comparison. :(

No. While I enjoy reading Wikipedia, and have spent lots of time doing so, I'd have to learn how to edit it to actually edit it, and I don't have any plans to do so.

I would love to edit Wikipedia (particularly the articles relating to New Zealand Railways; they are not like the ones about other railways, and I am a bit of a train nut), but, I am not skilled in editing it, particularly writing the code.

I would love to edit Wikipedia (particularly the articles relating to New Zealand Railways; they are not like the ones about other railways, and I am a bit of a train nut), but, I am not skilled in editing it, particularly writing the code.

The code is actually very simple. I'm absolutely rubbish at coding in general, but I mastered wiki code with no problem at all. And if I can do it, anyone can do it. ;)

You can learn by example. When you're editing an article (or simply when you click "edit" to view its code), you can see what code produces what results.

lol every single computer in my school is blocked. Too many people vandalize.

The Mac Lab is blocked now. "Inappropriate use"

Far too easy.

Maybe this would be harder? (Well, only slightly)
From: Palestrina (Opera) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestrina_%28opera%29) to: FP (Complexity) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP_%28complexity%29)

Edit: Nope.

Reading Wikipedia can be such an amazing and fascinating time-sink if you do it right.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_problem_with_wikipedia.png

You just explained everything everyone ever does on Wiki; it's so fun to click the links and see where it'll take you...

24 people here (other than myself) claim to have known that there's a Tok Pisin version of Wikipedia.

Many of you are clearly liars. :p

I don't know I'll have to check the Wiki.

No,but honestly I've edited it a few times. But never on anything serious because even though I want to expand it with my knowledge, and I'm proably right but I don't want to spread misinformation and expand the Wiki stereotype if I'm wrong. I've never really seen a mistake on Wikipedia so all those teachers,etc. who say not to use it just give more work to there pupils.But you should always back check your sourses with other sites,books,etc. There is the occasional misspelling,yes, but all-in-all its great. But I just edit it on nonsense like the Simpsons and stuff. Oh but no one can complain about using pictures for projects,like for a nice cover or something. And it is rather fun to just look at the pictures to see if you can get the jist of the article before you read it. And just who makes all those maps for Wiki anyway.

24 people here (other than myself) claim to have known that there's a Tok Pisin version of Wikipedia.

Many of you are clearly liars. :p

I don't even know what Tok Pisin is! :eek::D

I don't even know what Tok Pisin is! :eek::D

The article in English about Tok Pisin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tok_Pisin)

The article in Tok Pisin about Tok Pisin (http://tpi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tok_Pisin)

:)

I like to make Edits on Wikipedia, but most of them get reverted! It's not like I vandalize pages.

I like to make Edits on Wikipedia, but most of them get reverted! It's not like I vandalize pages.

I've heard lots of people say this. Can you go into more detail about the edit-reverting?
*Has no secret agenda*

That's not the wiki game. The wiki game is where you pick two random articles on wikipedia and whoever gets from the first to the second via the least number of articles wins.
How about from this:

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

to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_of_Us_%281969_song%29

Some of you no doubt already knew, but there's a Wikipedia article about NationStates :p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NationStates

How about from this:

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

to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_of_Us_%281969_song%29
Lewis and Clark ---> Pittsburgh ---> England ---> Liverpool ---> the Beatles ---> Let It Be ---> Two of Us

How about from this:

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

To this:

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

--------------------------------------------------
Ariddia, I knew about the NationStates article, but it is all wrong, you must have vandalised the article, we are not all that bad

Ariddia, I knew about the NationStates article, but it is all wrong, you must have vandalised the article, we are not all that bad

I'm sure Generalites could "improve" it with lots of pointless trivia. ;)

On a related topic... Wikipedia has made me famous! :D

Well, sort of.

An article I created has been mentioned by a major French newspaper.


Créée juste après les incidents des Paris, une longue fiche Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jin_Jing) en anglais est disponible sur elle.

(link (http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2008/04/21/01003-20080421ARTFIG00495-l-etrange-histoire-du-phenomene-jin-jing.php))

The article in question was one I started, but I haven't been the major contributor to it. I began it as little more than a stub, and other contributors have expanded it. And have argued endlessly about what its content should be. (On the other hand, the French version of the same article is almost entirely by me.)

It's probably due to the fact that NSwiki is down (well, uneditable), so I can't waste my time editing that.

So... Do you work on Wikipedia? Does it waste a lot of your time? :p

I've spent a lot of time working on articles in the Cree language wikipedia. I've had to abandon it for finals, but I'm sort of obsessed, yes. It'd be nice to have more help though. It's weird being one of the only contributors.

How about from this:

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

To this:

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

--------------------------------------------------
Ariddia, I knew about the NationStates article, but it is all wrong, you must have vandalised the article, we are not all that bad

NZR ADK class -> Auckland -> New Zealand -> Pacific Ocean -> Asia -> Azerbaijan -> Artur Rasizade

How about from this:

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

To this:

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


NZR_ADK_class - Western_Australian_Government_Railways - Western_Australia - Russia - Azerbaijan - Artur_Rasizade

So... Do you work on Wikipedia? Does it waste a lot of your time? :p

No and no.

I've spent a lot of time working on articles in the Cree language wikipedia. I've had to abandon it for finals, but I'm sort of obsessed, yes. It'd be nice to have more help though. It's weird being one of the only contributors.

I know how you feel. I've contributed a little to the Tok Pisin, Bislama and Scots Wikipedias, among others. I don't speak those languages, but their similarity to English meant I could pick up a few basics and create stub articles through mimickry. (I.e., once I knew how to say "X was born in 1954 in Such-a-place and has been prime minister of country Y since 1999", I could start a few stubs.) The Bislama Wikipedia in particular is deserted; there are almost no contributors. I suppose Cree would be rather too foreign for me to understand and help out.

Good luck with it! :)

I should be getting on with work, but instead, I've spent this morning and most of yesterday and last night editing Wikipedia. I've discovered that the French Wikipedia has huge lacks when it comes to Pacific countries, so I've begun the herculean task of amending to that. :p I've been filling in some articles and creating others (including articles on Torres Strait Islanders, the Stolen Generations, Fiji's Great Council of Chiefs, Mahendra Chaudhry and Manasseh Sogavare).

There's still a lot to be done. The problem is, it's becoming addictive. That nagging (and rather silly) feeling that the French Wikipedia absolutely needs articles on the 2006 riots in Tonga, the 2006 riots in the Solomon Islands, along with articles on such famous people as Snyder Rini and Timoci Bavadra. :p

It's probably due to the fact that NSwiki is down (well, uneditable), so I can't waste my time editing that.

So... Do you work on Wikipedia? Does it waste a lot of your time? :p

Yes, I´d worked on Wikipedia a few times and it is a major waste of time. I think I´ve worked on ETA articles, Nicea Council, Asturias and Spanish Inquisition, at the top of my head. But sometimes it´s not even worth the effort.

But sometimes it´s not even worth the effort.

How so?

It is good your doing all this editing.


but you should also accept that French speakers are just going to have to live with a Wiki Gap compared to english speakers.

I should be getting on with work, but instead, I've spent this morning and most of yesterday and last night editing Wikipedia.

I will never understand you but I love you.

It is good your doing all this editing.

but you should also accept that French speakers are just going to have to live with a Wiki Gap compared to english speakers.

Oh, I don't intend to single-handedly drag the French Wikipedia up from 648,000 articles to 2,340,000. ;) It's already one of only three Wikipedias to have over 500,000 articles, which isn't too bad. I'm just doing my bit to fill the gaps on topics that interest me and that I'm sufficiently knowledgeable about (South Pacific politics and history, for example). When I have time, that is. I have a long list of articles to create or improve, and many items on that list have been there, unattended to, for months now.

I will never understand you but I love you.

Well, thank you. :D

I'm... in the poll? :eek::p

And no, I don't edit Wikipedia. But there has been (well, still is, sadly) one article that really, really made me want to - but I didn't because at the time I was studying for an exam on the very same topic and didn't have the time and later I didn't have the necessary follow-through and by now I have forgotten most of the actual historical detail. Even though I guess I should still go through and at least edit the most egregiously insane parts.

I swear to God it has to be the worst, most revisionary, most disgusting Wikipedia entry ever.

It's the whole first part of this article on Indian Removal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal), down to the list of contents. Read it and weep.

I've made minor edits to about 30-40 articles, and and written a couple of stubs.

I swear to God it has to be the worst, most revisionary, most disgusting Wikipedia entry ever.

It's the whole first part of this article on Indian Removal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal), down to the list of contents. Read it and weep.

Sadly, I'm not surprised. Revisionism is a problem with some articles. (There have been some annoying editors on the article about the Stolen Generations, for example.) In most cases, though, it gets corrected.

Wikipedia Survives of people like you!
especially when people like me get stoned and edit it off public computers...

Wikipedia Survives of people like you!
especially when people like me get stoned and edit it off public computers...

Hehe.

I've made about 1300 edits to the English Wikipedia, a little over 1000 edits to the French Wikipedia (where I've created over 100 articles), and a handful of edits to Wikipedias in 10 other languages - including creating the article about Cardiff in the Korean Wikipedia (http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%B9%B4%EB%94%94%ED%94%84), a tiny stub where I wrote just one line: 바스테르(웨일스어: Caerdydd)는 웨일스의 수도이다. ("Cardiff is the capital city of Wales.")

I created stub articles about Tok Pisin (http://ht.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tok_pisin) in the Haitian Creole Wikipedia ("Lang tok pisin se youn lan lang kreyòl ki baze sou lang angle. Se lang soti Papwazi-Nouvèl-Gine.") and in the Tok Pisin Wikipedia ("Bislama emi wanpela tokples na toktok long bung bilong Vanuatu. Famili bilong Bislama: Inglis-besd kriol tokples. Bislama na Tok Pisin ol i wanlain. Tok Pisin em i wanpela tokples bilong Papua Niugini.").

Oh, and I created [url=http://tpi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabet_2_bilong_Papua_Niugini]the article about Queen Elisabeth II (]about Bislama[/url) in the Tok Pisin Wikipedia. ("Elisabet 2 i kwin bilong 16 kantri: Papua Niugini, Yunaitet Kingdem, Solomon Ailan, Ostrelia, Niu Silan, Tuvalu... Em i kamap bilong Yunaitet Kingdem long Februeri 6 bilong yia 1952. Mama i karim em long Epril 21 bilong yia 1926.")

In the English Wikipedia, my most notable contributions have been creating the articles on Melanesian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanesian_socialism), the People's Charter for Change and Progress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Charter_for_Change_and_Progress), Samoan nationality law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoan_nationality_law), Tongan nationality law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongan_nationality_law), New Zealand-Fiji relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand-Fiji_relations), Fiji-Tonga relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji-Tonga_relations), Australia-Papua New Guinea relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Papua_New_Guinea_relations), and Australia-Nauru relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Nauru_relations). On a more humourous note, I created the article on La Bougie du Sapeur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Bougie_du_Sapeur).

The one I put the most effort into, though, was Sino-Pacific relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Pacific_relations), which I continue to update now and then.

I've also done quite a few other things, adding whole sections to other articles. Most recently, I've been contributing to the article on the 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summer_Olympics_torch_relay). (Almost all of this section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summer_Olympics_torch_relay#Media_coverage) is by me, for example.)

I'm trying not to spend too much time on Wikipedia, though. It interferes with work and research. :( My 2000 edits are nothing compared to true addicts. They make me an "apprentice" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SERVICE#Apprentice_Editor_.28or_Novato.29). There are people with over 40,000 edits!

Incidentally, here's Wikipedia article on NationStates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NationStates).

How so?

Because, for example, the revision I did on the Nicea Council article was copied and someone else used it without my permission. Another time, perhaps what I revised didn´t set well with one of the admins., it was on the proper way of writing ¨euskera¨, it was erased. Erased after all my work! I was pissed. So, in views of it all, I decided not to edit Wikipedia articles.

Because, for example, the revision I did on the Nicea Council article was copied and someone else used it without my permission.

Of course they did. When you edit, there's a big message in glaring letters which informs you that, if you proceed, you agree for anyone to re-use what you've written freely. Just a few days ago, I found a website where someone had copy/pasted from what I'd written in the article on Sir Edmund Hillary. They didn't credit me. I wasn't offended; if anything, I was rather flattered.


Another time, perhaps what I revised didn´t set well with one of the admins., it was on the proper way of writing ¨euskera¨, it was erased. Erased after all my work! I was pissed. So, in views of it all, I decided not to edit Wikipedia articles.

Anyone can erase stuff, not just admins. It may simply have been a vandal. What you do in such cases is see whether the person indicated a reason for erasing your stuff. If they didn't, or if you disagree with their reason, you restore what you'd written. Stuff that's erased isn't lost: it's recorded, and you can retrieve it very easily. On several occasions I've retrieved stuff of mine that had been deleted. If your stuff gets deleted again, you simply bring the matter up in the article's talk page, and the Wikipedia community will normally come to your assistance and back you up. If someone keeps deleting your stuff for no apparent reason, you can report him to the admins.

Im constantly reading Wikipedia in my downtime, its generally my prime resource for Entertainment/Information...

it has been wrong on occasion, and if i know the answer i change it, but, i dont care, its proven to be 97% as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica...and has a shit load more information...just the sheer Volume/Convenience is enough to keep me coming, lol...

Id die without Wikipedia, lol...;)