Wikipedia?

There do seem to be a number of nameserver issues around at the moment, not
sure what the problem actually is, but its bound to be human error.. grin.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
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.


Wikipedia is fine here but The Pirate Bay is down.

--
Adam

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:43:44 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

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

The Tories edited wikipedia to try to "prove" labour wrong....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7884121.stm
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

In article , says...
"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.



I've always wondered why they don't insist on at least a valid e-mail address (even if it's a
throwaway account on yahoo or hotmail).

They should also ban editing from any IP address that's come from a place of secondary education -
might cut down on the "XXXX IS GAY!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!" type of additions.

--
Halmyre

This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your head clean off.

On Nov 16, 9:01*am, Adrian wrote:
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.

Whoosh?

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.


There is a current vogue of denigrating Wikipedia. Whilst its format of
allowing anyone to edit content occasionally leads to erroneous or
mischievous entries, by and large it is an extremely useful reference for
those who haven't the time or knowhow to hunt down original references.
I get the feeling that there is a campaign to rubbish it, because it is
free - and so limits other publishers from making money by selling the same
information. They would clearly benefit from its being thought of as
worthless.

Jim Hawkins

Railsigns.co.uk said...

Whoosh?

Ah! The sound made by someone admitting defeat and running away very
fast.

Bye bye.

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

"Jim Hawkins" wrote:

There is a current vogue of denigrating Wikipedia. Whilst its format of
allowing anyone to edit content occasionally leads to erroneous or
mischievous entries, by and large it is an extremely useful reference for
those who haven't the time or knowhow to hunt down original references.


Wikipedia is dramatically better than it was only a couple of years
ago, but some still criticise it on the basis of how it used to be.

I think the improvement is a result of people actively editing
Wikipedia to correct inaccuracies rather than pointing the finger and
passively moaning about it. But some people are still whining ...

On 2010\11\16 14:51, Bruce wrote:
"Jim wrote:

There is a current vogue of denigrating Wikipedia. Whilst its format of
allowing anyone to edit content occasionally leads to erroneous or
mischievous entries, by and large it is an extremely useful reference for
those who haven't the time or knowhow to hunt down original references.


Wikipedia is dramatically better than it was only a couple of years
ago, but some still criticise it on the basis of how it used to be.

I think the improvement is a result of people actively editing
Wikipedia to correct inaccuracies rather than pointing the finger and
passively moaning about it. But some people are still whining ...


I wish someone would edit the article on Superlens... I don't understand
a word of it.

"Halmyre" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"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.



I've always wondered why they don't insist on at least a valid e-mail
address (even if it's a
throwaway account on yahoo or hotmail).

They should also ban editing from any IP address that's come from a place
of secondary education -
might cut down on the "XXXX IS GAY!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!" type of
additions.

Good idea.

Making it a bit easier to report repeated vandalism would help too.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

"Froot Bat" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:57:04 -0000, "Brian Gregory [UK]"
wrote:
"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.

And what exactly do you seriously think you can do about it? For all
your mad ping/traceroute/DNS skillz, unless you're actually a tech or
admin where the problem is, the answer is: absolutely sod all.

I wouldn't sit and do nothing. I'd employ my many years of experience
to know that, whatever the problem is, it will be fixed eventually by
the people with the responsibility and ability to fix it, and I'd get
on with something else.

If I _really_ wanted to see what was on an unavailable page I'd try
and find a cached version of it, or even the Wayback Machine, which I
use frequently for sites linked to in, say, old forum posts that no
longer exist.

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.

Like I said: it makes no difference.

How would you fix a website that isn't yours? How would you fix your
ISP's connection? How would you fix a problem between your ISP and the
website you want to access?

Oh that's right, for all your jerking off with your network tools, you
can't, can you.

Sometimes these people do actually listen when you email or phone them about
the problem. Less than you wouls hope I admit but they do sometimes.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.