Wikipedia?

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:38:50 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Jeremy Double
saying something like:

In areas where I have specialist knowledge, Wikipedia is at least as
reliable as other first points of reference.

Yes, well; in a couple of areas where I have definite knowledge of
things that happened, it's bloody wrong. I tried correcting them a
couple of times, but it always got reverted by some effing know-all.

Ah, now we know who's been messing it up! ;-)
--
Angus Rodgers

charles wrote:
In article ,
Mark Robinson wrote:
On 15/11/2010 22:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

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

Well, you shouldn't have done, because that was a "BBC Micro" ;-}

or, more accurately a "British Broadcasting Corporation Microcomputer".
"BBC" was the Registered Trademark (in the electrical sales field) of
"Brown, Boverie et Cie" - a Swiss based manufacturer.

BBC also, in various fields stood for: British Bacon Company (of Swindon),
Barnes Borough Council, Borough of Brentford & Chiswick, Barking Brassware
Company - and probably many others.

When you travelled south on the train from Doncaster, you used to be
able to look to the west about ten miles out of town to see a big hut
with the huge white letters 'BBC' on it. This was the Bawtry Bowls Club.

Bill

Adrian wrote:
" gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying:

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.

I've just tried to look something up, and it was about as slow as a slug
with a broken leg trying to wade through treacle.
That sounds a bit Blackadderish.

Bill

"Brian Gregory [UK]" wrote in message
...
....
Making it a bit easier to report repeated vandalism would help too.

Easy to do so at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...st_vanda lism

David Biddulph

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , charles
writes:
In article ,
Mark Robinson wrote:
On 15/11/2010 22:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

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

Well, you shouldn't have done, because that was a "BBC Micro" ;-}

(-: - but anyone over a certain age (who is into technology, at least)
would indeed think of an old B (or Master) on hearing that phrase. (As at
least one other here has agreed!)

or, more accurately a "British Broadcasting Corporation Microcomputer".

Later versions (of models A and B) were called "British Broadcasting
Corporation Microcomputer System".

Earlier models had "BBC Microcomputer" next to the owl.

The Master had "British Broadcasting Corporation Master Series
Microcomputer".

--
Max Demian

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:28:06 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Froot Bat
writes:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:52:06 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:31:08 +0000, Froot Bat wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:57:04 -0000, "Brian Gregory [UK]"

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.

2) If it is not within your control you can make a better case to
whoever's responsibility it is to get it fixed.

Because only you will be aware of the problem, right?

He didn't say that. But if _everybody_ assumed - as you are implying
that you do - that "someone else" would report it, it would be longer
before it was fixed.

Indeed. It's not the same but street lights around here only get fixed
if /I/ report them. This makes me assume that I am the only one who
does report them.


Like I said: it makes no difference.

Like I and he said, it helps to know where the problem lies.

Say it all you like, knowing that other people can access a site
doesn't tell you where the problem lies and doesn't help you access
the site, it just tells you the site isn't down.

Actually, it can help you access the site, if you have access to any
form of rerouter (can you still set some of the translators - like
Google/Babelfish - to "English to English"?). Or, as someone else has
said (if you really need the information in a hurry), going to a friend
who has a different ISP, or a public library: a waste of time if the
site is down. Or you could use your own alternative - a mobile dongle,
perhaps, or even, in extremis, dialup to another ISP.
[]
Your argument rests on the ridiculous premise that you and you alone
are aware that there's a problem and where it is, and without you
saving the day the problem will continue.

And _your_ argument rests on the - not ridiculous, but sad - assumption
that someone else will report/fix it. True, but antisocial.

Not always true.
--
(\__/) 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 message , at 00:38:50 on
Wed, 17 Nov 2010, Grimly Curmudgeon
remarked:
In areas where I have specialist knowledge, Wikipedia is at least as
reliable as other first points of reference.

Yes, well; in a couple of areas where I have definite knowledge of
things that happened, it's bloody wrong. I tried correcting them a
couple of times, but it always got reverted by some effing know-all.

That's my experience too. And the website is very biassed towards
published sources, even when they are wrong! Apparently, being there
when it happened, doesn't count.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:38:50 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

Yes, well; in a couple of areas where I have definite knowledge of
things that happened, it's bloody wrong. I tried correcting them a
couple of times, but it always got reverted by some effing know-all.

Problem is, for something on Wikipedia to be considered 'true' it must
be supported by a reliable source - i.e. one of those newspapers or
proper journalists, who (a) don't report everything, and (b) don't
always get it right when they do.

It is a key failing (although possibly unavaoidable) in an otherwise
worthwhile endeavour.
--

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:27:03 +0000, Froot Bat wrote:

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.

A little like saying "there is a power cut if your lights don't come
on. It doesn't make any difference if your neighbours have power or
not."

--

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:29:19 GMT, Zero Tolerance wrote:

Problem is, for something on Wikipedia to be considered 'true' it must
be supported by a reliable source - i.e. one of those newspapers or
proper journalists, who (a) don't report everything, and (b) don't
always get it right when they do.

Still better than relying on the input from someone off the street
you've never heard of.

--
mechanic