If you need to be fast, yes. If you're writing an article or an essay that is supposed to be published or read by an intellectual audience, no.
Buy on AliExpress.com
How Wikipedia can be Manipulated (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ßöмßäяðîëя
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
On a related note, I really do want to take a 2x4 and whack every whining, oh-so-empowered blogger in the head -- the kind who take a piss on the concept of there being a difference between journalists and bloggers, that they are of equal value, etc. I went to one of these Web 2.0 conference things last year and I couldn't believe how much the bloggers were religiously full of themselves -- completely arrogant, dismissive of journalists and the profession, and insanely self-important.
Despite journalism's many failures to check facts, to rip and read press releases when under tight deadlines, to avoid corporate biases in the editorial process, etc... But it's as if people go to journalism school to jerk off ... and that any schmuck in his underwear with a laptop is Pulitzer material. As if some untrained, inexperienced blogger has any clue about how to conduct research, how to use sources, how to verify facts. I would like to see one of these ego-bloated blogger chumps actually go to prison over protecting the identity of a source on a story.
Until then, you're just a monkey with a GeoCities page.
Despite journalism's many failures to check facts, to rip and read press releases when under tight deadlines, to avoid corporate biases in the editorial process, etc... But it's as if people go to journalism school to jerk off ... and that any schmuck in his underwear with a laptop is Pulitzer material. As if some untrained, inexperienced blogger has any clue about how to conduct research, how to use sources, how to verify facts. I would like to see one of these ego-bloated blogger chumps actually go to prison over protecting the identity of a source on a story.
Until then, you're just a monkey with a GeoCities page.
They always were, still are. Just now "blogging" has gained so much more legitimacy than "my personal homepage".
Incidentally, Greg, what can you tell us about the recent bill proposed to make bloggers register as lobbyist or something of the sort? Sounded like complete hogwash to me, but I just saw the headline.
Incidentally, Greg, what can you tell us about the recent bill proposed to make bloggers register as lobbyist or something of the sort? Sounded like complete hogwash to me, but I just saw the headline.
I hadn't heard about that. Sounds like hogwash.
I thought it was rather incredulous now that bloggers are demanding, and being given, equal if not better access (seating, etc.) than radio and print media at many political events in this country. Talk about taking a nice trendy idea and legitimizing it way out of proportion...
I thought it was rather incredulous now that bloggers are demanding, and being given, equal if not better access (seating, etc.) than radio and print media at many political events in this country. Talk about taking a nice trendy idea and legitimizing it way out of proportion...
PC culture aside, I really don't understand how it is that bloggers have earned this kind of legitimacy so quickly.
Incidentally, this thread should be renamed to How to edit Wikipedia.
1. Click the edit button.
2. Deface your enemy.
3. Save your work.
4. Marvel at your accomplishments for as long as you wish, but do not reload the page. Provide a screenshot to friends when boasting.
Incidentally, this thread should be renamed to How to edit Wikipedia.
1. Click the edit button.
2. Deface your enemy.
3. Save your work.
4. Marvel at your accomplishments for as long as you wish, but do not reload the page. Provide a screenshot to friends when boasting.
OP
Damn, that is sickness, Rami. Now I'm jealous of my best friend.How difficult is it to create an account on Wikipedia to make actual amendments to their pages? I have some things I would like to add to wikipedia, especially some facts about the Penn State Meteorology program.
...using there help desk, and some trial and error should do the trick.
OP
OP
Gosh, I didn't know the people at Microsoft read these forums!
Microsoft in hot water over Wikipedia edits
(AP) -- Microsoft Corp. has landed in the Wikipedia doghouse after it offered to pay a blogger to change technical articles on the community-produced Web encyclopedia site.
While Wikipedia is known as the encyclopedia that anyone can tweak, founder Jimmy Wales and his cadre of volunteer editors, writers and moderators have blocked public-relations firms, campaign workers and anyone else perceived as having a conflict of interest from posting fluff or slanting entries. So paying for Wikipedia copy is considered a definite no-no.
"We were very disappointed to hear that Microsoft was taking that approach," Wales said Tuesday.
Microsoft acknowledged it had approached the writer and offered to pay him for the time it would take to correct what the company was sure were inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles on an open-source document standard and a rival format put forward by Microsoft.
Spokeswoman Catherine Brooker said she believed the articles were heavily written by people at IBM Corp., which is a big supporter of the open-source standard. IBM did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Brooker said Microsoft had gotten nowhere in trying to flag the purported mistakes to Wikipedia's volunteer editors, so it sought an independent expert who could determine whether changes were necessary and enter them on Wikipedia.
Brooker said Microsoft believed that having an independent source would be key in getting the changes to stick -- that is, to not have them just overruled by other Wikipedia writers.
Brooker said Microsoft and the writer, Rick Jelliffe, had not determined a price and no money had changed hands -- but they had agreed that the company would not be allowed to review his writing before submission. Brooker said Microsoft had never previously hired someone to influence a Wikipedia article.
Jelliffe, who is chief technical officer of a computing company based in Australia, did not return an e-mail seeking comment.
In a blog posting Monday, he described himself as a technical standards aficionado and not a Microsoft partisan. He said he was surprised to be approached by Microsoft but figured he'd accept the offer to review the Wikipedia articles because he considered it important to make sure technical standards processes were accurately described.
Wales said the proper course would have been for Microsoft to write or commission a "white paper" on the subject with its interpretation of the facts, post it to an outside Web site and then link to it in the Wikipedia articles' discussion forums.
"It seems like a much better, transparent, straightforward way," Wales said.
Microsoft in hot water over Wikipedia edits
(AP) -- Microsoft Corp. has landed in the Wikipedia doghouse after it offered to pay a blogger to change technical articles on the community-produced Web encyclopedia site.
While Wikipedia is known as the encyclopedia that anyone can tweak, founder Jimmy Wales and his cadre of volunteer editors, writers and moderators have blocked public-relations firms, campaign workers and anyone else perceived as having a conflict of interest from posting fluff or slanting entries. So paying for Wikipedia copy is considered a definite no-no.
"We were very disappointed to hear that Microsoft was taking that approach," Wales said Tuesday.
Microsoft acknowledged it had approached the writer and offered to pay him for the time it would take to correct what the company was sure were inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles on an open-source document standard and a rival format put forward by Microsoft.
Spokeswoman Catherine Brooker said she believed the articles were heavily written by people at IBM Corp., which is a big supporter of the open-source standard. IBM did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Brooker said Microsoft had gotten nowhere in trying to flag the purported mistakes to Wikipedia's volunteer editors, so it sought an independent expert who could determine whether changes were necessary and enter them on Wikipedia.
Brooker said Microsoft believed that having an independent source would be key in getting the changes to stick -- that is, to not have them just overruled by other Wikipedia writers.
Brooker said Microsoft and the writer, Rick Jelliffe, had not determined a price and no money had changed hands -- but they had agreed that the company would not be allowed to review his writing before submission. Brooker said Microsoft had never previously hired someone to influence a Wikipedia article.
Jelliffe, who is chief technical officer of a computing company based in Australia, did not return an e-mail seeking comment.
In a blog posting Monday, he described himself as a technical standards aficionado and not a Microsoft partisan. He said he was surprised to be approached by Microsoft but figured he'd accept the offer to review the Wikipedia articles because he considered it important to make sure technical standards processes were accurately described.
Wales said the proper course would have been for Microsoft to write or commission a "white paper" on the subject with its interpretation of the facts, post it to an outside Web site and then link to it in the Wikipedia articles' discussion forums.
"It seems like a much better, transparent, straightforward way," Wales said.