Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

PatrickHenry · Oct 26, 2005, 07:47 pm

Do you folks recognize that Wikipedia is a user-written encyclopedia and that it is currently the largest encyclopedic source on the internet?

It defines itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

And it is editable by the user. This means that you may encounter views written with a spin that opposes yours! But you may write a factual rebuttal!

I urge the educated libertarians and conspiracy researchers on this board to get involved with editing the misinformation and wrong-headed spin that you have found on Wikipedia. I have done so and will continue. What do you folks think?

Scribbler1 · Oct 26, 2005, 07:59 pm

You don't have to sell me. I've been using it for over a year now and I like it. The only thing I avoid is the content that IS challenged. I've seen some topics that are subject to interpretation and they have those disclaimers on the page which tells me to avoid at all costs.

PatrickHenry · Oct 26, 2005, 08:00 pm

What about researching and doing some editing, Scrib?

Compugasm · Oct 26, 2005, 08:06 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Scribbler1

You don't have to sell me. I've been using it for over a year now and I like it. The only thing I avoid is the content that IS challenged.

Same here. I was reading about the September 11 attacks a few days ago. I was pleasently suprised nothing there was disputed.

Milton Bradley · Oct 26, 2005, 08:10 pm

I am aware of the way Wikipedia runs its operation. I watched a C--SPAN interview with one of the founders, and it was quite an interesting show. The topic of disinformation came up in the interview, and he pointed out that they do attemppt to police the site regularly, but it seemed an overwhelming task for the (10people, I think) that currently have monetary investment in the operation.

I would say that keeping it honest was noble endeavour indeed.

I would actually be interested in any links you could provide to spin that you have run across on Wikipedia. I have perused it myself, and found much of the information to be exasperatingly researched, and truthful, as far as I could tell. (and I was researching Operation Mockingbird thanks to your tip)

This could get very interesting.

PatrickHenry · Oct 26, 2005, 08:18 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Milton Bradley

I would actually be interested in any links you could provide to spin that you have run across on Wikipedia.

I disagree with the spin of this article, Milton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_enemy_act

They are not recognizing the tyranny that is invading all areas of life because of US Government interference.

This article is more in line with my views on the subject: http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon64.htm

But let us not digress from the issue of the struggle to inform a public resource that will be a disinformation center if the cogniscenti forsake the battle...

Scribbler1 · Oct 26, 2005, 09:37 pm

Quote:

Quote by: PatrickHenry

What about researching and doing some editing, Scrib?

I actually had considered adding something of my own on a couple of occasions but never got around to it.
The next time I see something amiss there I believe I'll write it down to remind myself. I'm glad you mentioned that.

Osborn F Enready · Oct 27, 2005, 02:06 am

Excellent posts guys.

Thanks for the refrences for example Patrick.

As to the original question, yes, I do know about Wickipedia and their options. I watched the same show as Milton I believe.

I must say, I do not get on there enough. Thanks for calling attention though, and maybe I will try my hand at it.

PatrickHenry · Nov 1, 2005, 12:56 pm

They actually have ther own forum and discussions behind the scenes.

Try this: Look up an article. Open the History tab to see how the article has changed since inception. Or open the Discussion tab for the background on how the changes came about. You can click on the (talk) hyperlink next to a writer's name for more discussion on that person, etc. It is a very rich site.

Disclaimer to Sean: I'm not trying to siphon your userbase. Just alerting them to some of the other goings on at one of the Web's premier destinations...

PatrickHenry · Nov 1, 2005, 07:14 pm

Check it out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian

Son of Belial · Nov 1, 2005, 07:44 pm

I updated one of the Wikipedia articles. Within five minutes, if that long, the article was changed back and I got this message:

Quote:

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopaedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Furry lifestyler, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 21:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how it's an unconstructive edit to comment that "Furry lifestylers" dress like the Banana Splits because they were molested by a school mascot as children. Oh well.

Seriously, just look at these assholes:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ldcon_2002.jpg

PatrickHenry · Nov 1, 2005, 10:23 pm

They are wierd, Belial! But were you seriously attempting to add to the knowledge base or just freakin'?

Scribbler1 · Nov 1, 2005, 10:32 pm

How can anyone add to THAT? I think I know much more about these people than I ever WANTED to know, just by reading that.

Critter · Nov 1, 2005, 10:57 pm

I just added "Z24".

Son of Belial · Nov 1, 2005, 11:02 pm

I was just trying to piss them off. I might add a picture of the Beatles album "Magical Mystery Tour" and say it's a photo of the Fab Four Furries.

Son of Belial · Nov 1, 2005, 11:04 pm

I know this shit is petty, but god damn... I can't get over how much I hate these people. I like Goths more. Just LOOK at them!

click the link, I had the picture posted here but it's way too big...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ldcon_2002.jpg

I see this picture and part of me wants to cry, part of me wants to laugh my ASS off, and part of me wants to whoop some costume-wearing fuckwits.

[color=red][size=18]FAMOUS FURRIES[/color]

The four original furries... Fab Four Furries

It's a COCK and BALLS!

Yogi looks like he's ready to feel this dude up...

Hey! It's psychadelic furries![/size]

Scribbler1 · Nov 2, 2005, 12:34 am

You know, I'd kind of hate to see all that work go down the toilet if some joker posts something like that as a laugh and it actually gets through. All you need is a few people relying on Wikipedia for FACTS and have them become laughingstocks for using fake information and you ruin the whole idea.

It just isn't THAT funny!

Son of Belial · Nov 2, 2005, 12:39 am

Nah, people do that shit all the time. It doesn't ruin their work. An admin just hits a button and it reverts back to what it was. It happens ALL the time on there.

Scribbler1 · Nov 2, 2005, 12:56 am

Quote:

Quote by: Son of Belial

Nah, people do that shit all the time. It doesn't ruin their work. An admin just hits a button and it reverts back to what it was. It happens ALL the time on there.

That's my point. If it happens ALL the time then there is a good chance some wiseguy's stuff will not be caught, especially if it's a lot more subtle than your "tweak". Although I personally never rely on Wikipedia as the sole source of anything, specifically because of what we are discussing, others may, and they might pay the price for it.
Writers, for the most part, take great pains to check their sources of information because one slip up in an article and you can probably kiss that publication goodbye as a source of income. I'd hate to see an otherwise good writer get the shaft because someone needed a chuckle.

Son of Belial · Nov 2, 2005, 01:02 am

Well, it shouldn't ruin the original author's reputation because it notes that an edit was done by someone else. Every time someone edits it, whoever runs that section sees the parts that were edited. If the edit was subtle, they would still see it and decide if it was appropriate or not.

Oct 26, 2005, 07:47 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,446	The Struggle for Wikipedia Do you folks recognize that Wikipedia is a user-written encyclopedia and that it is currently the largest encyclopedic source on the internet? It defines itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia And it is editable by the user. This means that you may encounter views written with a spin that opposes yours! But you may write a factual rebuttal! I urge the educated libertarians and conspiracy researchers on this board to get involved with editing the misinformation and wrong-headed spin that you have found on Wikipedia. I have done so and will continue. What do you folks think? "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Oct 26, 2005, 08:00 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,446	What about researching and doing some editing, Scrib? "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Oct 27, 2005, 02:06 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Excellent posts guys. Thanks for the refrences for example Patrick. As to the original question, yes, I do know about Wickipedia and their options. I watched the same show as Milton I believe. I must say, I do not get on there enough. Thanks for calling attention though, and maybe I will try my hand at it. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Nov 1, 2005, 12:56 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,446	They actually have ther own forum and discussions behind the scenes. Try this: Look up an article. Open the History tab to see how the article has changed since inception. Or open the Discussion tab for the background on how the changes came about. You can click on the (talk) hyperlink next to a writer's name for more discussion on that person, etc. It is a very rich site. Disclaimer to Sean: I'm not trying to siphon your userbase. Just alerting them to some of the other goings on at one of the Web's premier destinations... "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Nov 1, 2005, 07:14 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,446	Check it out... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Oct 26, 2005, 07:59 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	You don't have to sell me. I've been using it for over a year now and I like it. The only thing I avoid is the content that IS challenged. I've seen some topics that are subject to interpretation and they have those disclaimers on the page which tells me to avoid at all costs.

Oct 26, 2005, 08:10 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Milton Bradley BANNED Location: Ohio Province, Rep. of Comerica Posts: 7,320	I am aware of the way Wikipedia runs its operation. I watched a C--SPAN interview with one of the founders, and it was quite an interesting show. The topic of disinformation came up in the interview, and he pointed out that they do attemppt to police the site regularly, but it seemed an overwhelming task for the (10people, I think) that currently have monetary investment in the operation. I would say that keeping it honest was noble endeavour indeed. I would actually be interested in any links you could provide to spin that you have run across on Wikipedia. I have perused it myself, and found much of the information to be exasperatingly researched, and truthful, as far as I could tell. (and I was researching Operation Mockingbird thanks to your tip) This could get very interesting.

Nov 1, 2005, 10:23 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,446	They are wierd, Belial! But were you seriously attempting to add to the knowledge base or just freakin'? "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Nov 1, 2005, 10:32 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	How can anyone add to THAT? I think I know much more about these people than I ever WANTED to know, just by reading that.

Nov 1, 2005, 10:57 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Critter Bullets & Bracelets Location: Northwest Ohio Posts: 658	I just added "Z24". Making people go, "WTF?!?!?" since 1979.

Nov 1, 2005, 11:02 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
Son of Belial BANNED: Requested ban Location: Acheron 27 Posts: 1,461	I was just trying to piss them off. I might add a picture of the Beatles album "Magical Mystery Tour" and say it's a photo of the Fab Four Furries.

Nov 1, 2005, 11:04 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Son of Belial BANNED: Requested ban Location: Acheron 27 Posts: 1,461	I know this shit is petty, but god damn... I can't get over how much I hate these people. I like Goths more. Just LOOK at them! click the link, I had the picture posted here but it's way too big... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ldcon_2002.jpg I see this picture and part of me wants to cry, part of me wants to laugh my ASS off, and part of me wants to whoop some costume-wearing fuckwits. [color=red][size=18]FAMOUS FURRIES[/color] The four original furries... Fab Four Furries It's a COCK and BALLS! Yogi looks like he's ready to feel this dude up... Hey! It's psychadelic furries![/size]

Nov 2, 2005, 12:34 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	You know, I'd kind of hate to see all that work go down the toilet if some joker posts something like that as a laugh and it actually gets through. All you need is a few people relying on Wikipedia for FACTS and have them become laughingstocks for using fake information and you ruin the whole idea. It just isn't THAT funny!

Nov 2, 2005, 12:39 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
Son of Belial BANNED: Requested ban Location: Acheron 27 Posts: 1,461	Nah, people do that shit all the time. It doesn't ruin their work. An admin just hits a button and it reverts back to what it was. It happens ALL the time on there.

Nov 2, 2005, 01:02 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
Son of Belial BANNED: Requested ban Location: Acheron 27 Posts: 1,461	Well, it shouldn't ruin the original author's reputation because it notes that an edit was done by someone else. Every time someone edits it, whoever runs that section sees the parts that were edited. If the edit was subtle, they would still see it and decide if it was appropriate or not.