Home cinema - Wikipedia?

HomeCinemaBanter (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/index.php)

- UK digital tv (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Wikipedia? (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/showthread.php?t=67977)

Gareth wrote:

Yes there are. I can't find any references but there was a case where a
famous person (but not so famous that I can remember who it was) was
incorrectly linked to the assassination of JFK for a joke and things
like that.

There was also a case of a musician who found an error about the band he
was in [Dire Straits?] and altered the entry only to find it had been
re-edited back by the following day...

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

On 15/11/2010 21:12, David Kennedy wrote:

There was also a case of a musician who found an error about the band he
was in [Dire Straits?] and altered the entry only to find it had been
re-edited back by the following day...

I have seen such joke posts. Usually pretty weak jokes - the page I was
looking at was my old school.

Wikipedia BTW is working fine for me.

Andy

On Nov 15, 7:43*pm, "
wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/wikipedia.org

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:02:45 +0000, Gareth wrote:

I can't find any references but there was a case where a
famous person (but not so famous that I can remember who it was) was
incorrectly linked to the assassination of JFK for a joke and things
like that.

And person or persons unknown using a BBC computer who engaged in vandalism
of the article on President George Walker Bush.

http://business.timesonline.co.UK/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2264150.ece?token=null&offset=12

In message , Gareth
writes:

On 15/11/2010 19:51, Adrian wrote:
was about as slow as a slug
with a broken leg trying to wade through treacle.

I just tried the same wikipedia.org page from two ISPs, one worked one
didn't. My fixed connection, Plus.net, failed but my mobile connection,
Three, worked fine.

Everything else I've tried today through plus.net seems ok so I don't
know why wikipedia is having problems.

Wikipedia is fine from here via PlusNet.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent upon it, can
still ripen a bunch of grapes as it if had nothing else in the universe to do.
-Galileo Galilei, physicist and astronomer (1564-1642)

On 15/11/2010 21:00, Froot Bat wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:27:31 +0000, Angus Rodgers
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:19:40 -0800 (PST), D7666
wrote:

On Nov 15, 7:43 pm, "
wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

Good.

Perhaps people will stop quoting it in here and do some real research.

People are always making a joke of Wikipedia, but I don't know
why. I'm usually impressed by the quality of the pages there.
It's pretty reliable for articles on mathematics, and, as far
as I can tell, for other subjects, too. Are there some famous
examples of bad pages, which might explain this widespread
notion that it is unreliable? (Yes, of course I know that any-
one can edit it, so that it can never have final authority.)

Some of the railway stuff seems to be influenced by someone with bizarre
ideas about the need to dual gauge everything everywhere.

Most of the pages I've seen there lately have "citation needed" all
over them, or something similar.

And I've never seen book or newspaper with "citation needed", so clearly
they must be more reliable than Wikipedia!

As long as you don't take it seriously and remember it's _not_ an
encyclopaedia, it's fine, and it's a quick way to check something you
think you know or forgot, since Google can't get enough of it.

It is the best links directory I've found - some foreign airports'
official websites are hard to find with Google, being swamped with junk
hotel/car hire/travel/viagra sites.

It is also good for finding the views of loonies and obsessives on the
occasions I want them, and questions of the "what are Mongolians
supposed to call Bombay" and "is my atlas up to date in showing this
foreign city as being called Stalinville" variety.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In message , J G Miller
writes:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:02:45 +0000, Gareth wrote:

I can't find any references but there was a case where a
famous person (but not so famous that I can remember who it was) was
incorrectly linked to the assassination of JFK for a joke and things
like that.

And person or persons unknown using a BBC computer who engaged in vandalism
of the article on President George Walker Bush.

http://business.timesonline.co.UK/to...ectors/media/a
rticle2264150.ece?token=null&offset=12

I read that as people using a "BBC computer" - i. e. the 6502-based home
computer of the 1980s (-:!

In general, articles on people - especially still-living people,
especially if in politics rather than other fields - are liable to be
spoiled, but on uncontroversial subjects, especially difficult science
ones, it's generally good. (IME.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent upon it, can
still ripen a bunch of grapes as it if had nothing else in the universe to do.
-Galileo Galilei, physicist and astronomer (1564-1642)

"Angus Rodgers" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:19:40 -0800 (PST), D7666
wrote:

On Nov 15, 7:43 pm, "
wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

Good.

Perhaps people will stop quoting it in here and do some real research.

People are always making a joke of Wikipedia, but I don't know
why. I'm usually impressed by the quality of the pages there.
It's pretty reliable for articles on mathematics, and, as far
as I can tell, for other subjects, too. Are there some famous
examples of bad pages, which might explain this widespread
notion that it is unreliable? (Yes, of course I know that any-
one can edit it, so that it can never have final authority.)

I agree, it's certainly no worse than a lot of other info on the internet.

It does get vandalized but usually in very unsubtle ways that are easily
spotted and reverted back to the correct version.

I do I think they ought to totally ban editing when not logged in though.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.