How reliable is Wikipedia?

[SiFi]

Wikipedia is always right, except when spammers are about, but it's always dealt with, that's why I picked 80%

[citation needed]

 

[BEEEEEAAARRRS]

I bet they would say this is real.

Doubt it, (most) Wikipedians are too smart for their own good.

 

[SiFi]

I bet they would say this is real.

Doubt it, (most) Wikipedians are too smart for their own good.

Wikipedia is always right, except when spammers are about, but it's always dealt with, that's why I picked 80%

[citation needed]

 

[Glowsquid]

Wikipedia isn't alway reliable, it's sources are.

 

[SiFi]

Wikipedia isn't alway reliable, it's sources are.

I bet they would say this is real.

Doubt it, (most) Wikipedians are too smart for their own good.

Wikipedia is always right, except when spammers are about, but it's always dealt with, that's why I picked 80%

[citation needed]

 

[Smiddle]

Wikipedia isn't alway reliable, it's sources are.

QFT

 

[BEEEEEAAARRRS]

Wikipedia isn't alway reliable, it's sources are.

I bet they would say this is real.

Doubt it, (most) Wikipedians are too smart for their own good.

Wikipedia is always right, except when spammers are about, but it's always dealt with, that's why I picked 80%

[citation needed]

ok, shut up.

 

[SmartGuy]

I bet they would say this is real.

It would be cool if that was real D:

 

[Smiddle]

I bet they would say this is real.

It would be cool if that was real D:

Nah, it would just be rip-offey.

 

[Stooben]

Wikipedia is only as reliable as the person writing in its articles.

 

[ShyGuy27]

Wikipedia is only as reliable as the person writing in its articles.

Which is thousands of nerds.

 

[Stooben]

Wikipedia is only as reliable as the person writing in its articles.

Which is thousands of nerds.

Including me.

 

[SmartGuy]

Wikipedia is only as reliable as the person writing in its articles.

Which is thousands of nerds.

Including me.

ShyGuy: You say that like it's bad.

 

[ShyGuy27]

I didn't mean to.

 

[SmartGuy]

I didn't mean to.

K.

 

[BEEEEEAAARRRS]

Ok, proof that a lot of wikipedians are total robots:

This one guy posted a theory about something on an articles talk page, reply:

We don't know and, as a Wikipedians, we don't care...

 

[ShyGuy27]

Ok, proof that a lot of wikipedians are total robots:

This one guy posted a theory about something on an articles talk page, reply:

We don't know and, as a Wikipedians, we don't care...

That kind of lowers my opinion of Wikipedia.

 

[Stooben]

Wikipedia is only as reliable as the person writing in its articles.

Which is thousands of nerds.

Including me.

ShyGuy: You say that like it's bad.

I'm fairly certain he didn't mean it that way. Technically, a good portion of good contributors on Wikipedia are nerds. Whether they're history nerds, science nerds, gaming nerds, music nerds, or whatever, it's because of them that Wikipedia has so many articles. And the nerds that are more diligent with their work tend to make an attempt to find citations for their articles, rather than just leaving things unproven. Heck, if it weren't for a bunch of gaming nerds, the MarioWiki would be a gigantic failure. Everyone's a nerd about something; sometimes those nerds just make a better choice with their nerdiness than others.

 

[ShyGuy27]

Wikipedia is only as reliable as the person writing in its articles.

Which is thousands of nerds.

Including me.

ShyGuy: You say that like it's bad.

I'm fairly certain he didn't mean it that way. Technically, a good portion of good contributors on Wikipedia are nerds. Whether they're history nerds, science nerds, gaming nerds, music nerds, or whatever, it's because of them that Wikipedia has so many articles. And the nerds that are more diligent with their work tend to make an attempt to find citations for their articles, rather than just leaving things unproven. Heck, if it weren't for a bunch of gaming nerds, the MarioWiki would be a gigantic failure. Everyone's a nerd about something; sometimes those nerds just make a better choice with their nerdiness than others.

I already said that in a lot less words.

I didn't mean to.

 

[Stooben]

Wikipedia is only as reliable as the person writing in its articles.

Which is thousands of nerds.

Including me.

ShyGuy: You say that like it's bad.

I'm fairly certain he didn't mean it that way. Technically, a good portion of good contributors on Wikipedia are nerds. Whether they're history nerds, science nerds, gaming nerds, music nerds, or whatever, it's because of them that Wikipedia has so many articles. And the nerds that are more diligent with their work tend to make an attempt to find citations for their articles, rather than just leaving things unproven. Heck, if it weren't for a bunch of gaming nerds, the MarioWiki would be a gigantic failure. Everyone's a nerd about something; sometimes those nerds just make a better choice with their nerdiness than others.

I already said that in a lot less words.

I didn't mean to.

Oh, I missed that. XP

 

[Glowsquid]

Ok, proof that a lot of wikipedians are total robots:

This one guy posted a theory about something on an articles talk page, reply:

We don't know and, as a Wikipedians, we don't care...

If it was some "HERE'S MY AWESOME PET THEORY BASED ON MY BIASED AND INNACURATE OBSERVATIONS!" or "The stepfather of my friend told me that..." kind of things, I can't really say the guy who said that is wrong.

Now, here's a real proof that Wikipedia editors are brainwashed robots

From the Encyclopedia Dramatica Article talkpage:

ED has viruses, spyware, and adware. I just opened the article "That One" and it tried to put a virus on here. I know they've been having financial problems so maybe that explains it. I'll put a warning.YVNP (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NDA; no disclaimers in Wikipedia articles. The page linked to (the ED homepage) does not contain any such malicious material (as far as I'm aware); if someone goes to another page on ED that's their problem and it's not because of a Wikipedia EL that they're doing so. Giggy (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we even mention that they do this? It is common for ED to link to malicious programs. For example nimp.org(which is blacklisted by wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a source that says they do that, the determination that they do that is Original Research. Yes, that is taking the moral high road, but a) that is precisely the difference between WP and ED, and b) articles on people and institutions that attack WP are the ones that require the most due diligence. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is no reputable source would write about Ed in the first place. That;s why it is so hard to source anything in this article let alone virus/malware (hundreds of people have experienced this. I have seen posts at different places about it) AlioTheFool (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

I think it's necessary to note that ED doesn't do any of this stuff. on.nimp.org will crash your browser session, but it's not a virus by any means. On top of that, anything virus-like that exists on ED is in link form, which people would actually have to click on to be affected. You could say that google is an attack site based on the fact that they link to sites which can load viruses onto your computer in a similar manner. ED is based on the same Wiki software as Wikipedia. If ED editors could load viruses on ED articles, Wikipedia editors would be able to load them on Wikipedia. The idea that the owners would load viruses into ads is ludicrous and should NOT be noted in the article imo. --71.82.111.178 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So yeah, a website they link to potentially have viruses, but they won't mention it because CNN didn't do a new report on that.

F*ckin retards.

 

[Stooben]

If it was some "HERE'S MY AWESOME PET THEORY BASED ON MY BIASED AND INNACURATE OBSERVATIONS!" or "The stepfather of my friend told me that..." kind of things, I can't really say the guy who said that is wrong.

Now, here's a real proof that Wikipedia editors are brainwashed robots

From the Encyclopedia Dramatica Article talkpage:

ED has viruses, spyware, and adware. I just opened the article "That One" and it tried to put a virus on here. I know they've been having financial problems so maybe that explains it. I'll put a warning.YVNP (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NDA; no disclaimers in Wikipedia articles. The page linked to (the ED homepage) does not contain any such malicious material (as far as I'm aware); if someone goes to another page on ED that's their problem and it's not because of a Wikipedia EL that they're doing so. Giggy (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we even mention that they do this? It is common for ED to link to malicious programs. For example nimp.org(which is blacklisted by wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a source that says they do that, the determination that they do that is Original Research. Yes, that is taking the moral high road, but a) that is precisely the difference between WP and ED, and b) articles on people and institutions that attack WP are the ones that require the most due diligence. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is no reputable source would write about Ed in the first place. That;s why it is so hard to source anything in this article let alone virus/malware (hundreds of people have experienced this. I have seen posts at different places about it) AlioTheFool (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

I think it's necessary to note that ED doesn't do any of this stuff. on.nimp.org will crash your browser session, but it's not a virus by any means. On top of that, anything virus-like that exists on ED is in link form, which people would actually have to click on to be affected. You could say that google is an attack site based on the fact that they link to sites which can load viruses onto your computer in a similar manner. ED is based on the same Wiki software as Wikipedia. If ED editors could load viruses on ED articles, Wikipedia editors would be able to load them on Wikipedia. The idea that the owners would load viruses into ads is ludicrous and should NOT be noted in the article imo. --71.82.111.178 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So yeah, a website they link to potentially have viruses, but they won't mention it because CNN didn't do a new report on that.

F*ckin retards.

...What a load of crap. :|

 

[BEEEEEAAARRRS]

If it was some "HERE'S MY AWESOME PET THEORY BASED ON MY BIASED AND INNACURATE OBSERVATIONS!" or "The stepfather of my friend told me that..." kind of things, I can't really say the guy who said that is wrong.

Now, here's a real proof that Wikipedia editors are brainwashed robots

From the Encyclopedia Dramatica Article talkpage:

ED has viruses, spyware, and adware. I just opened the article "That One" and it tried to put a virus on here. I know they've been having financial problems so maybe that explains it. I'll put a warning.YVNP (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NDA; no disclaimers in Wikipedia articles. The page linked to (the ED homepage) does not contain any such malicious material (as far as I'm aware); if someone goes to another page on ED that's their problem and it's not because of a Wikipedia EL that they're doing so. Giggy (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we even mention that they do this? It is common for ED to link to malicious programs. For example nimp.org(which is blacklisted by wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a source that says they do that, the determination that they do that is Original Research. Yes, that is taking the moral high road, but a) that is precisely the difference between WP and ED, and b) articles on people and institutions that attack WP are the ones that require the most due diligence. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is no reputable source would write about Ed in the first place. That;s why it is so hard to source anything in this article let alone virus/malware (hundreds of people have experienced this. I have seen posts at different places about it) AlioTheFool (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

I think it's necessary to note that ED doesn't do any of this stuff. on.nimp.org will crash your browser session, but it's not a virus by any means. On top of that, anything virus-like that exists on ED is in link form, which people would actually have to click on to be affected. You could say that google is an attack site based on the fact that they link to sites which can load viruses onto your computer in a similar manner. ED is based on the same Wiki software as Wikipedia. If ED editors could load viruses on ED articles, Wikipedia editors would be able to load them on Wikipedia. The idea that the owners would load viruses into ads is ludicrous and should NOT be noted in the article imo. --71.82.111.178 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So yeah, a website they link to potentially have viruses, but they won't mention it because CNN didn't do a new report on that.

F*ckin retards.

...What a load of crap. :|

Wow, a lot of them are stupid robots.

 

[Nerdy Guy]

If it was some "HERE'S MY AWESOME PET THEORY BASED ON MY BIASED AND INNACURATE OBSERVATIONS!" or "The stepfather of my friend told me that..." kind of things, I can't really say the guy who said that is wrong.

Now, here's a real proof that Wikipedia editors are brainwashed robots

From the Encyclopedia Dramatica Article talkpage:

ED has viruses, spyware, and adware. I just opened the article "That One" and it tried to put a virus on here. I know they've been having financial problems so maybe that explains it. I'll put a warning.YVNP (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NDA; no disclaimers in Wikipedia articles. The page linked to (the ED homepage) does not contain any such malicious material (as far as I'm aware); if someone goes to another page on ED that's their problem and it's not because of a Wikipedia EL that they're doing so. Giggy (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we even mention that they do this? It is common for ED to link to malicious programs. For example nimp.org(which is blacklisted by wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a source that says they do that, the determination that they do that is Original Research. Yes, that is taking the moral high road, but a) that is precisely the difference between WP and ED, and b) articles on people and institutions that attack WP are the ones that require the most due diligence. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is no reputable source would write about Ed in the first place. That;s why it is so hard to source anything in this article let alone virus/malware (hundreds of people have experienced this. I have seen posts at different places about it) AlioTheFool (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

I think it's necessary to note that ED doesn't do any of this stuff. on.nimp.org will crash your browser session, but it's not a virus by any means. On top of that, anything virus-like that exists on ED is in link form, which people would actually have to click on to be affected. You could say that google is an attack site based on the fact that they link to sites which can load viruses onto your computer in a similar manner. ED is based on the same Wiki software as Wikipedia. If ED editors could load viruses on ED articles, Wikipedia editors would be able to load them on Wikipedia. The idea that the owners would load viruses into ads is ludicrous and should NOT be noted in the article imo. --71.82.111.178 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So yeah, a website they link to potentially have viruses, but they won't mention it because CNN didn't do a new report on that.

F*ckin retards.

...What a load of crap. :|

Wow, a lot of them are stupid robots.

MORE PROOF:
Look at this User talk page. If you clicked the link to the Reversion the guy did, it's oversly spam (It talks about how "HOT" the charcters are), but the wikipedia guy who spotted this just made the guy read the writes guidelines instead of giving him a warning. This proves Wikipedia is too soft on spammers.

 

[BEEEEEAAARRRS]

If it was some "HERE'S MY AWESOME PET THEORY BASED ON MY BIASED AND INNACURATE OBSERVATIONS!" or "The stepfather of my friend told me that..." kind of things, I can't really say the guy who said that is wrong.

Now, here's a real proof that Wikipedia editors are brainwashed robots

From the Encyclopedia Dramatica Article talkpage:

ED has viruses, spyware, and adware. I just opened the article "That One" and it tried to put a virus on here. I know they've been having financial problems so maybe that explains it. I'll put a warning.YVNP (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NDA; no disclaimers in Wikipedia articles. The page linked to (the ED homepage) does not contain any such malicious material (as far as I'm aware); if someone goes to another page on ED that's their problem and it's not because of a Wikipedia EL that they're doing so. Giggy (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we even mention that they do this? It is common for ED to link to malicious programs. For example nimp.org(which is blacklisted by wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a source that says they do that, the determination that they do that is Original Research. Yes, that is taking the moral high road, but a) that is precisely the difference between WP and ED, and b) articles on people and institutions that attack WP are the ones that require the most due diligence. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is no reputable source would write about Ed in the first place. That;s why it is so hard to source anything in this article let alone virus/malware (hundreds of people have experienced this. I have seen posts at different places about it) AlioTheFool (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

I think it's necessary to note that ED doesn't do any of this stuff. on.nimp.org will crash your browser session, but it's not a virus by any means. On top of that, anything virus-like that exists on ED is in link form, which people would actually have to click on to be affected. You could say that google is an attack site based on the fact that they link to sites which can load viruses onto your computer in a similar manner. ED is based on the same Wiki software as Wikipedia. If ED editors could load viruses on ED articles, Wikipedia editors would be able to load them on Wikipedia. The idea that the owners would load viruses into ads is ludicrous and should NOT be noted in the article imo. --71.82.111.178 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So yeah, a website they link to potentially have viruses, but they won't mention it because CNN didn't do a new report on that.

F*ckin retards.

...What a load of crap. :|

Wow, a lot of them are stupid robots.

MORE PROOF:
Look at this User talk page. If you clicked the link to the Reversion the guy did, it's oversly spam (It talks about how "HOT" the charcters are), but the wikipedia guy who spotted this just made the guy read the writes guidelines instead of giving him a warning. This proves Wikipedia is too soft on spammers.

That's cause they dont have messages, all they do is leave templates on any talk.