Want proof Wikipedia is crazy? Have you seen the DU page?

I just looked up DU on Wikipedia because I wanted to see what it said about us. We've had a few Wikipedia editors talk here at DU and get really mad about criticisms.

Have you seen what they say about DU? It's this kind of thing that makes me consider Wikipedia a mess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Underground

The problem with Wikipedia is just this. A reference that isn't really a reference, but a place for a handful of people to use their personal opinions to shape what is supposed to be encyclopedic.

IMDB is open for user submission of facts as well but they have mods who verify what's entered before it's allowed to show up on the webpage.

Oddly enough, what I have seen in Wiki seemed legitimate and very informative. I think they overdo it on the hyperlinks though; one of my pet peeves is reading a paragraph where every other word is hyperlinked. And it's a DOUBLE-DOG insult when the link leads to literally nowhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Underground

the link is correct, but the board program here appears to read it as a smilie at one point

The colon in the text of the link screws it up.

I like wikipedia. :-)

It had all these outrageous comments. Now the link doesn't work and when I check the DU page, it's normal looking.

I wish I had copied it. There were all these quotes from the DU board, and comments about censorship, and some guy complaining because he felt disenfranchised. It was a rant that went on and on.

as a reference source....and always has been....

Other than the fact that they feel it necessary to discuss how there has been strong criticism of the site is (meanwhile, you'd think that Free Republic has no dissenters or controversy to speak of).

Is this the gripe?

I just looked it over and it seems okay to me.

Thanks.

See my comment above. There was this long rant about DU and Skinner, and all sorts of comments that were out of left field, or I should say right field.

Probably got changed by someone.

First, here's the link you're trying to give:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Underground

(You just needed to turn smilies off in that little checkbox below the edit area...)

That page is a log of discussion *about* the DU page. It mostly consists of whines by freepers and others who have tried to edit the wikipedia's DU page, and replies by wikipedia editors who have explained why the freepers' edits have been "reverted" - ie deleted.

So of course you'll read a lot of "DU is a hate-filled site" ranting there - it's coming from the freepers who wanted the wikipedia DU entry to reflect their biases, but were unsuccsessful in achieving this.

The wikepedia's actual entry about DU is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Underground and it seems quite balanced and neutral to me.

I googled DU and looked for the Wikipedia entry, which was that page.

Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuussseeee me!

Still, look at those comments! Pretty nutty, eh?

But the DU entry itself is fine. I'd judge the "sanity" of wikipedia by its actual articles, rather than by discussion between people who fail to add content to them, personally.. :-)

the dark side of force.

this is copied when you look up Free Republic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic

Lawsuit and settlement
Because it has been a practice of Free Republic to allow its users to copy and paste copyrighted news stories in their entirety to its discussion boards, Free Republic was sued by The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. (Reuters and The Wall Street Journal were part of the original consortium threatening legal action, but they dropped out before the lawsuit was filed.) The tort complaint of $1,000,000 was filed in the 9th District Circuit Court. Many members view the lawsuit as an unsuccessful conspiracy by a "liberal media" to stifle the organization; founder Robinson referred to the suit as "a life and death struggle with elements of the socialist propaganda machine."

In a negotiated settlement, Free Republic agreed to remove the posted articles from the sites listed in the complaint, and paid these two newspapers $5,000 each. Neither party was awarded any damages, legal fees or costs. Today, other publishers, such as Condé Nast Publications, have joined The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times in objecting to the posting of entire copyrighted articles. Users now post excerpts from such publishers (as allowed by fair use), and the site filters submissions against a watchlist of "banned" sources, by request of their webmaster or as a result of the lawsuit, as a precaution against future lawsuits.


I think our write is a much better reflection and when you compare the two side by side. DU is awesome.

Very interesting write ups?

with elements of the socialist propaganda machine."

What a moran!

:rofl:

.... serious legal or medical or even historical research in Wiki, but for lots of things it is a treasure trove of information, and I've found the majority of it to be very useful or at least entertaining.

Over the last several weeks, there've been repeated edits to the Wikipedia article about DU, inserting hysterical RW attacks (such as calling DU members "raving lunatics"). I and others have the article watchlisted so we can revert these inappropriate changes. As other DUers have pointed out, though, your link was to the article's associated talk page. The general policy for talk pages is to let people have their say.

I just Googled "Democratic Underground", and the Wikipedia article was listed well ahead of its talk page. I have no idea why Google sent you to the talk page instead.

BTW, if it makes you feel any better, the most heavily vandalized article on Wikipedia, by far, is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush. Most of the vandals express hostility to Bush ("What a jerk" or the like). Some praise him extravagantly. Some are pure childishness -- earlier today, someone deleted the entire contents of the article and replaced it with, "George Bush likes cheeseburgers."

As for the standard criticism that you shouldn't assume everything you see on Wikipedia to be true, the standard response is that you shouldn't assume that of any website. Wikipedia, like any other encyclopedia, is best used when you want a quick summary of the important information about a subject, or as a starting point for further research.

I appreciate what the volunteers at Wiki are trying to do, but I don't see how it can work. It's like trying to keep railroad cars from being painted on when they sit in parts of town where there are a lot more taggers than railroad cops.

I understand the "talk" page now, but even so, reading it does not reassure one that the review process is sound. Good luck on it, though.

The railroad cops at Wikipedia don't emphasize "trying to keep railroad cars from being painted on". Instead, the cops carry around their own paintbrushes so they can paint over the graffiti. Yes, persistent vandals are banned, but our first line of defense is simply to revert their changes. It works because, for each vandal, there are several volunteers who want to help create a good, free encyclopedia.

Here's a passage from an article about Wikipedia in Wired ("The Book Stops Here", March 2005):



link to full article: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki.html?pg=1

The system seems crazy in comparison with traditional media. What it's produced so far is broad coverage, with 850,000 articles in English. (If you know someone who paid for Britannica, ask him or her whether Britannica even has an article about DU.) I admit, though, that the articles are of widely varying quality. As a rough guideline, an article that's been edited by many different people is more likely to be accurate.

next.

Next.

Instead, we've witnessed the process of keeping the sanity at wikipedia.

instead of wikipedia? If you have one, that is.

Look, "DU" is a totally different animal from say "Black-tufted Marmoset". Their is more opinion in a DU article than in a Marmoset article. What do you expect?

The underlying problem is that people at large aren't thinking critically about any sources.

What was wrong with that? I thought it was fair.