Wikipedia

Thanks for posting this up. I am a content contributor, but they're also at the top of my regular donation list.. From each paycheque, I donate $20 to some project that either produces free/open source software or works on sharing knowledge. Things get done if enough people get involved. Those who can't code can donate and/or do non-coding stuff like translations.
 
Why don't they just go the advertising route? Are they concerned that they'll lose their encyclopedic integrity or something? I don't get it.
 
fastar1 said:
Why don't they just go the advertising route? Are they concerned that they'll lose their encyclopedic integrity or something? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

When you collect your paycheck from one source or just a few their ethics become your ethics.
 
+1, they're getting a decent donation from me this year. I love what they're doing & I can't count the hours I've spent learning about the gist of something on there.

I'd like to add that they also don't get the credit that they deserve. They catch a lot of flack because anyone can contribute/edit, but the people who criticize it don't realize how quickly edits get reversed. You also have some of the top experts in the world (PH.D students) writing these articles and debating about them - these are the guys willing to do it for free because they're THAT passionate about it. There's a discussion/debate/argument that goes on behind the scenes between field experts to make sure that the articles are fair and on point.

On a slightly related note, I edited my first wiki article this year :D
 
i dont donate, but i have been doing translation work for a few years now. helps me keep up my spanish and q'echi.
 
nobbie48 said:
When you collect your paycheck from one source or just a few their ethics become your ethics.
Click to expand...

One motorcycle journalist got canned by the magazine due to an article critical of the older Snell standards.. Shoei was a MAJOR advertiser for that magazine. Most people who commented on the story understood the magazine's position and thought it was OK to sell objectivity for advertising revenues.
 
Encyclopedic integrity? Wikipedia is hardly an encyclopedia by any means, and it's integrity is questionable at best. For the most part it's one (or several) persons opinion, hearsay, and half truths, and at best a glimpse into a subject.

eg: Wiki entry for the Honda RN-01 G-Cross downhill MTB

Honda_RN01_2.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_RN-01_G-cross

"The Honda RN-01 G-Cross is a mountain bike produced by Honda specifically for downhill racing events. Honda is not a manufacturer of bicycles and this bike is not commercially available to the general public. It was introduced in the 2004 racing season by the Team G Cross Honda who competed in the NORBA and Mountain Bike World Cup points series races.
What sets it apart from most other bicycles is the fact that it was developed specifically for race use by the Honda team using many purpose made components not commercially available. It is also different in that it uses an internal gearbox instead of external (dérailleur) gearing system, which although not unique to this bicycle, is quite rare. The gearbox on the RN-01 is specific because it is not a classic gearbox like the Rohloff Speedhub for instance. Inside the gearbox there is a classic derailleur, a cassette and a chainring. The freewheel is not placed on the rear wheel but in the bottom bracket so the chain is constantly moving when the back wheel is spinning. This allows the rider to shift gears without pedalling.
Honda was protective of the internal gearbox technology, often requiring mechanics to remove the gearbox from the bicycle after use.
Honda chose South African rider Greg Minnaar to debut this bike in 2004 as the then reigning World Downhill Champion.
With the Honda G-Cross Team ceasing to compete, the project has come to an end. The bicycle and gearbox design will not be available to the general public."

Sounds nice and all, except for one little detail. Honda never designed the bicycle. Outside of some reworking of the monocoque frame parts for production, it was someone else's work. The bike was designed by a Japanese engineer who built and raced the original prototype. Honda bought the bike, and the rights to produce it.

rnf01_2.jpg


So wiki is a useful tool, but you really need to take everything you read on it with a grain of salt and some healthy skepticism.
 
FullMotoJacket said:
Encyclopedic integrity? Wikipedia is hardly an encyclopedia by any means, and it's integrity is questionable at best. For the most part it's one (or several) persons opinion, hearsay, and half truths, and at best a glimpse into a subject.

eg: Wiki entry for the Honda RN-01 G-Cross downhill MTB

Honda_RN01_2.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_RN-01_G-cross

"The Honda RN-01 G-Cross is a mountain bike produced by Honda specifically for downhill racing events. Honda is not a manufacturer of bicycles and this bike is not commercially available to the general public. It was introduced in the 2004 racing season by the Team G Cross Honda who competed in the NORBA and Mountain Bike World Cup points series races.
What sets it apart from most other bicycles is the fact that it was developed specifically for race use by the Honda team using many purpose made components not commercially available. It is also different in that it uses an internal gearbox instead of external (dérailleur) gearing system, which although not unique to this bicycle, is quite rare. The gearbox on the RN-01 is specific because it is not a classic gearbox like the Rohloff Speedhub for instance. Inside the gearbox there is a classic derailleur, a cassette and a chainring. The freewheel is not placed on the rear wheel but in the bottom bracket so the chain is constantly moving when the back wheel is spinning. This allows the rider to shift gears without pedalling.
Honda was protective of the internal gearbox technology, often requiring mechanics to remove the gearbox from the bicycle after use.
Honda chose South African rider Greg Minnaar to debut this bike in 2004 as the then reigning World Downhill Champion.
With the Honda G-Cross Team ceasing to compete, the project has come to an end. The bicycle and gearbox design will not be available to the general public."

Sounds nice and all, except for one little detail. Honda never designed the bicycle. Outside of some reworking of the monocoque frame parts for production, it was someone else's work. The bike was designed by a Japanese engineer who built and raced the original prototype. Honda bought the bike, and the rights to produce it.

rnf01_2.jpg


So wiki is a useful tool, but you really need to take everything you read on it with a grain of salt and some healthy skepticism.
Click to expand...


So then when Wiki says "Produced by Honda" they were correct?

It doesn't say anywhere in there that Honda designed it as you say?
 
jeffjones said:
It doesn't say anywhere in there that Honda designed it as you say?
Click to expand...


"What sets it apart from most other bicycles is the fact that it was developed specifically for race use by the Honda team"
 
FullMotoJacket said:
"What sets it apart from most other bicycles is the fact that it was developed specifically for race use by the Honda team"
Click to expand...
"Honda is not a manufacturer of bicycles and this bike is not commercially available to the general public."

So yes it seems it was developed specifically for the Honda team, as it has been developed and changed from the original design.
Developed and designed are technically two different things.
 
Personally, I'm not a big fan of wikipedia. I find the posts to be extremely boring to read, and suck any of the passion and interest out of a subject. I guess that's just the nature of something that is by definition written by committee.

If you're just looking for facts about something, I guess you get a list of facts, and you hope that the particular facts you're reading are true. Most times they are, sometimes they're not. But if the topic you're interested in is in any way controversial, you often won't really get a sense for that through wikipedia. The controversial elements are neutered out of the post, and what you end up with is a flat, neutral document.

And if the topic you're interested in is something that fosters excitement, or really any kind of emotion, that's going to be neutered out of the post as well.

Over time, wikipedia has taken the place of "expert" sites, and in many ways the crowdsourcing has led to a tendency towards a mediocre collection of only the facts that everyone agrees on. Which are usually not the most interesting aspects of a particular topic.

Still, a good starting point for very basic definitions, as long as you're willing to spend the time to corroborate with better sources.
 
FullMotoJacket said:
So wiki is a useful tool, but you really need to take everything you read on it with a grain of salt and some healthy skepticism.
Click to expand...
First of all that's always true about any source of information. Wiki are quite upfront about the potential for inaccuracy and allow anyone to review and make edits within certain guidelines.

Also your example of misinformation is a bit weak. You're saying that Honda Motor Co. never designed the bike, and the wiki entry doesn't contradict that. It merely sais that the Honda racing team developed it. Now I can see how there is a risk of misinterpretation in the way it's worded but then you are free to go in there and add clarity. I think your contribution would be quite valuable.

And I still don't really see how advertising would corrupt Wiki since it never passes judgement like other media do. It's an encyclopedia so all it tries to do is relay information as factually as possible.

And yeah, it's not "entertaining" enough for some people, that's funny.
 
fastar1 said:
First of all that's always true about any source of information. Wiki are quite upfront about the potential for inaccuracy and allow anyone to review and make edits within certain guidelines.

Also your example of misinformation is a bit weak. You're saying that Honda Motor Co. never designed the bike, and the wiki entry doesn't contradict that. It merely sais that the Honda racing team developed it. Now I can see how there is a risk of misinterpretation in the way it's worded but then you are free to go in there and add clarity. I think your contribution would be quite valuable.

And I still don't really see how advertising would corrupt Wiki since it never passes judgement like other media do. It's an encyclopedia so all it tries to do is relay information as factually as possible.

And yeah, it's not "entertaining" enough for some people, that's funny.
Click to expand...

First off, there's a difference between "entertaining" and "interesting to read".

Second, there's no need for your dismissive sarcasm.
 
Duster929 said:
First off, there's a difference between "entertaining" and "interesting to read".

Second, there's no need for your dismissive sarcasm.
Click to expand...
Duster929 meet Fastar1, Fastar1 meet Duster929
 
Duster929 said:
First off, there's a difference between "entertaining" and "interesting to read".

Second, there's no need for your dismissive sarcasm.
Click to expand...

Great...
2 mid-age men doing online battle (GTAM style)
 
FullMotoJacket said:
So wiki is a useful tool, but you really need to take everything you read on it with a grain of salt and some healthy skepticism.
Click to expand...

Exactly my approach with all the quality "advice" on GTAM, and virtually every other website, esp media.


.
 
FullMotoJacket said:
...
Click to expand...
1) it has no ratings
2) it's a stub
3) it's classified as a low-class importance article
4) there's no discussion on it
5) the revision history's pretty unimpressive

For every example of a crappy article like this, I can find an example of a well-researched article. But in your defense, wiki needs to do a better job of telling readers which articles are more likely to be inaccurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom