Wikipedia?
 

"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
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


But you can't seriously say anyone (other that idiots) was misinformed by
these examples.

When you find something that sounds unlikely on Wikipedia you look at the
history and check it's not a recent edit that might be vandalism that hasn't
been reverted yet.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

Wikipedia?
 

"Froot Bat" wrote in message
...
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.)

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

So what, when you look in any reference book or encyclopaedia there will be
plenty of information without any citation.


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 ranks high on Google because it's popular, not vice versa,

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

Wikipedia?
 

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:29:43 +0000, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

It ranks high on Google because it's popular, not vice versa,

Remember that popularity on Google is not primarily popularity due
to visits but popularity by other sites linking to those pages.

Go to Google and enter the search term

french military victories

Then click the "I'm feeling lucky" button rather than the "search" button.

Wikipedia?
 

On Nov 15, 10:21*pm, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 15/11/2010 21:00, Froot Bat wrote:
[snip]
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.

I'd back all that - though, whilst I'm only too aware of the odd
priorities exhibited therein (which can as you say can prove
positively helpful at times), I'm still occasionally surprised on
finding a particularly spartan article such as this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_prime_minister

Wikipedia?
 

"Froot Bat" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:39:21 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:43:31 -0800, 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.

If you are even in doubt whether a web site host is reachable,
try using

http://downforeveryoneorjustme.COM/

A totally pointless website, created by someone at the ultimate
pointless website, Twitter.

A website is reachable if you can reach it. If not, it's unreachable.
It doesn't make any difference if other people can access it or not.

I suppose it makes no difference if you're just going to sit there and do
nothing about it.

But if you want to report the problem and work round it or get it fixed then
it's very nice to know whether the site is down or if something else wrong.

Once you know the site isn't down you can try things like comparing results
from different DNS servers, using traceroute to establish where packets are
being misdirected etc.



If you cannot reach that site then it either means your Internet
connection
is down, name service resolution is broken for you, there are major
routing
problems on the backbine, or your ISP has cut off its connection to the
Internet for security reasons.

Or that site is down.

The discussion was about a particular site which we it had already been
established was NOT down.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

Wikipedia?
 

On 15/11/2010 22:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
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 (-:!

AOLMe too/AOL

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.)

In areas where I have specialist knowledge, Wikipedia is at least as
reliable as other first points of reference. And the requirement for
the sources of information to be properly cited means that you can check
the facts if you're at all doubtful...
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

Wikipedia?
 

On 15/11/2010 23:29, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:
"Froot wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:27:31 +0000, Angus Rodgers
wrote:
Most of the pages I've seen there lately have "citation needed" all
over them, or something similar.

So what, when you look in any reference book or encyclopaedia there will be
plenty of information without any citation.

.... which makes them less useful, because you can't follow up the
sources of the information if you're doing real research.

The reference books I use regularly DO cite their sources.
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

Wikipedia?
 

On Nov 15, 9:42*pm, Poldie 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.

http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/wikipedia.org

That site isn't working on my PC. Anyone else?
Cheers
Jeff

Wikipedia?
 

yaffle53 gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/wikipedia.org

That site isn't working on my PC. Anyone else? Cheers

Works fine from here - and tells me that wikipedia is up.

Useful site - bookmarked.

thinks
http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/d...neorjustme.com

Wikipedia?
 

Adrian wrote:

thinks
http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/d...neorjustme.com

Seems they'd thought of that ...