People aren't always nice to each other (although that's encouraged), but by and large, it works. Trademarks property of their respective owners. Politics won't self-correct, just as Wikipedia doesn't self-correct. having your edits reverted oftentimes feels a bit like being beaten like Rodney King.
Not everyone rolls over so easy.
There is something happening when men and men pretending to be women in Des Moines and Davenport; in Lebanon and Concord come out of their basements to write and rewrite and edit and correct because they believe in what this medium can be. Even those heavily involved in uncontroversial editing of articles on science, math and the like might not see it. Which is what's so odd about that. Professionals exploit the rules, and the people playing fair are cheated. Wikipedia was great. (14 February 2015). So if we got some other group together to create an electronic encyclopedia without the concept of notability, it would completely supersede Wikipedia.
The organization has global hubs in New York, Washington, London, Doha, Pune, and Hong Kong.
The problem for Wikipedia is that the set of all facts is a superset of the set of notable facts.
commenters line up to hate on Wikipedia.
It does however follow for other articles I. I'm afraid to post to Wikipedia.
[16] Some alumni continue to work towards improving education systems and outcomes in other ways, such as by developing online teaching resources.
For when we have faced down increasing attacks on our credibility; when we've been told that we're not a valid source, or that we shouldn't even try to be the be all and end all, or that we can't, thousands upon thousands of Wikipedia authors have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a free and liberated people. A cursory read of this would make one thing this woman was getting the death penalty for having an affair. Only when it is or becomes really important or if they're being investigated for fraud in their research projects will somebody actually read it but that's maybe 0.1% of the papers that ever make it that far.
As in science, we cannot really prove that a particular view is correct, but we can certainly prove that it's not.
And many more are linking out to sources. Ok, you named the person who reverted your edits, but you didn't say what page or link to the revert. Should All Academic Research Be Free And What Wikipedia Can Teach Us About Publishing ... Wikipedia completely changed all of this, reimagining the encyclopedia as … I've had some similar experiences here (and a fun occasion when I cited my own site and that was fine), but to play the devil's advocate, how are the mods supposed to know if you really know your stuff or are full of shit?
A long-standing dispute is the name of one city and county. [1] Teach For Us is a recognized 501(c)3 charity by the IRS. it's gotten more words in it, but it's become no less fractious a society and no more accurate a source of information. There are often multiple possibilities of which no one has been absolutely proven.
Other civilizations, Islamic, Chinese, Japanese often considered themselves superior to others and there are plenty of references for that too.
Blizzard Announces Final Diablo 3 Class, PvP Arena Battles, "So why don't you make like a tree, and get outta here."
There may be more comments in this discussion.
This is a person who is not holding a logically c. On Wikipedia, the person or people who determine what is valid is the one who has the most time and is most invested in the content of the article, regardless of cold, hard logic.
Look at segregated sports events like English professional soccer where the authoritie, So, is chatroulette the next thing that can teach us all how to just get along? Random page. Driving measurable impact in the short term on student achievement and in the long term on the development of leaders who will help ensure educational opportunity for all, 6.
Directed by Sonia Lowman.
It didnt even get a 2 line paragraph in the XKCD article concerning the controversy. Wikipedia doesn't seem to be self-correcting. Seems like the general perception of the Wikipedia community is anything but productive and civil. But the great thing about Wiki is the sheer amount of guidelines. What's worse is the articles which are controlled by groups or persons for reasons unknown. (Terrible) Mathematical articles on things like the exponential function are essentially editorially controlled by people who are manifestly unqualified for the post. Fuck wikipedia. - the way that organized gangs play the "kill them one at a time" and "get our pet admin to declare them sockpuppets or meatpuppets" games.
I'm not even going to address that, because most of this /.
Remember the "openxml" standardization travesty.
Makes me wonder how they find those pages if they're not noteworthy in the first place. Wikipedians on the other hand have agreed to call the county Londonderry and the city Derry. http://kyon.pl/img/16712,wikipedia,Articles_of_War,lol,wtf,war,.html, William Connolley, now “climate topic banned” at Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPages, someone removed all chemical equations from the smelting article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IAR. Your analogy fails to support your contention because it actually describes how Wikipedia operates: Anyone can make edits, but the edits will only stay if the support the opinion of the Wikipedia cliques and admins.
The site also shows above-average exposure to African American internet users and has a high index of college and graduate-level-educated visitors.[11].
But for all that, I believe it's doing us a service by forcing us to have the arguments. Huffington Post Blog. There are few ways politics self-correct, and very few of them don't involve bloodshed. All Rights Reserved. Reuters (13 August 2015). If Wikipedia were the model for a society, it would be a strict oligarchy covered in a thin layer of pseudo-democracy. Charity Navigator (September 2015). Think what a different place the world would be if you could convince everyone to follow 'kindergarten etiquette', why is it stated so dismissively in the summary?
Slashdot, though is different, because it is filled pedantic fucking comedians who often go without sleep, survive on caffeine, live in a basement or garage where they are plugged into the internet 24 fucking hours a fucking day, so the probability of some dickwad inventing a difference and some fuckwad using it on someone approaches certitude the way Captain Kirk approaches FTL or green babes. Nobody ever reads it, the synopsis or only some graphs are used to prove or disprove a point in their own research papers. People may have differing opinions, but I'd venture to say that if your point of view isn't even internally consistent then it simply isn't valid. [9][10], Audience analysis from Quantcast reveals Teach For Us reaches a balanced male/female audience that is overwhelmingly US-based with good distribution across ages and ethnicities. Sure. Davies, Anna (May 2014) “Spreading Social Innovations: A Case Study Report”.