And another one for the rap song “regulators”
Yeah, wikipedia has gone over to the tards
Easy. In our culture, cartoons are more important than unanswerable philosophical questions. I say this is an improvement.
Regardless of how much people criticize wiki, I think its one of the best things ever to happen on the internet. Its just terribly convenient to have such a large repository of knowledge and information on pretty much every topic you can think of, whether or not you think its “valuable”.
A large repository of disknowledge. Hm. Sounds a lot like the internet.
I find tons of good information on Wikipedia and from other parts of the internet.
You are making it sound like Wikipedia is centralized, which means we can fault the entire thing for a couple sarcastic articles. Well, Wikipedia isn’t a monolith; it has good parts, and it has bad parts. The distribution of the good and bad articles isn’t random. It is systematic. In some fields, the articles tend to be useless. In others, they tend to be great. If you know what Wikipedia is good at, it can be a great tool; but, if you don’t, if you just aimlessly surf it, you might hit a particularly bad patch, and conclude, without justification, that the whole thing is worthless.
I consider Wikipedia to be one of the greatest innovations ever, and I use it almost everyday. I don’t understand why so many people attack it, and I especially don’t understand why I also find hate for it in this sort of forum. Wikipedia is a marvel of decentralized order. It still amazes me even nowadays, when I step back and think about it. Before it came around, I guarantee that most people wouldn’t even think that it would be possible, if you were to ask them. I even meet people nowadays, who, though they haven’t spent much time getting to know what they are criticizing, or seeing it in action, tell me that it is worthless, because anyone can edit it, and what sort of misinformation do you expect, when any idiot can change whatever they want!
The article is hilarious, but not inaccurate.
I consider Wikipedia to be one of the greatest innovations ever, and I use it almost everyday. I don’t understand why so many people attack it, and I especially don’t understand why I also find hate for it in this sort of forum
I was mostly joking, I actually consider wikipedia a great spring board and use it almost like search engine. I still don’t think I would call it an encyclopedia though, as much as it is a reflection of computer culture and mass amounts of almost unfiltered info comming in.
How would you know that it is good? It could be like some parts of the entry for AE.
One good lesson Wikipedia teaches is that information is never impartial, or automatically trustworthy. Accept that there may problems, and be amazed that the quality on general articles is very high. It is not without reason compared to “regular” encyclopedias in quality and far beyond them in quantity of topics.
But if we just have to bash Wikipedia here, let the classic say: “I wouldn’t trust Wikipedia with the truth any more than I would trust the government with my money.” 
The problem with wikipedia is the idea of it, not the particular case. A book/journal/etc. stays the same and has the same one author. Wikipedia is neither a record nor valid reference nor impartial. That limits it strictly to “WTF is an X?” situations.
A journal or book is not impartial either - and its references can be similarly valid or not. Of course, Wikipedia changes and that can be hard to get used to, because it is an entirely different medium. That doesn’t change its usefulness to a vast number of people, it is in fact one of its major advantages, that it can be dynamically changed and improved.
(For the record, there are projects based on Wikipedia selecting ‘stable’ versions of important pages. Try to lookup one of those - you may find it more to your liking.)