ironman wrote:I'll claim responsibility for adding "Thunder Matt" as one Matt Murton's nicknames in his Wikipedia entry, but some complete stranger added a link to our blog.
I've edited the Sean Burroughs page numerous times. All swear words were removed, but the bulk of my content is still there.
I don't see anything bad on his page, unless you added legit stuff.
For all of you Wikipedia users, check out uncyclopedia.org. The site is hilarious. Wikipedia checks entries for content- uncylopedia checks entries for funniness. I suggest you look up the "Wikipedia" entry on Uncyclopedia. Its good stuff.
"Oh, that Lankford and McGee, the trio of 'em. They're a one-man wrecking crew."
sportsaddict wrote:For all of you Wikipedia users, check out uncyclopedia.org. The site is hilarious. Wikipedia checks entries for content- uncylopedia checks entries for funniness. I suggest you look up the "Wikipedia" entry on Uncyclopedia. Its good stuff.
Why ban it? Like that is going to help? Might as well try to dig to China.
Why not instead say: Here is Wikpedia. Show the whole entry and related entries. If you stick to just the info here, you get a D. In other words, force them to go outside the source. If that doesn't work, have them find all the mistakes and fix it. Be creative - I'm sure there's lots you could do to embrace rather than reject it.
Or require a certain number of corroberating sources. That would do it too. Or, gasp, actually give some thought to the assignment instead of using the same one year after year!
There are so many other better ways to deal with it than just ban it. It was the same thing with Cliff notes. But they were the wikpedia of an earlier generation (for literature anyway).
When I started this thread, I had no clue Wikipedia would be so controversal. I knew of the limitations, and there are articles on Wikipedia itself which detail the criticisms and problems with the site.
But this thread was fun, to learn some new things like some of the minor vandals. And some great laughs like the student who submited the Wikipedia article verbatim and the link to uncyclopedia.org!
sportsaddict wrote:For all of you Wikipedia users, check out uncyclopedia.org. The site is hilarious. Wikipedia checks entries for content- uncylopedia checks entries for funniness. I suggest you look up the "Wikipedia" entry on Uncyclopedia. Its good stuff.
pretty weird site...is it all written by the same person because it looks like every article has a reference to Kitten Huffing
Once I got an assignment from a teacher based on one of the massacre's during Vietnam, I can't remember what it was called as it was long ago. Well anyways, knowing that anyone who took his class had to do the assignment and would have to return the following day, I decided to do my own little bit of vandalizing. I looked up the massacre around 7:00 PM pacific and started editing some material like dates and names of locations, then at a few points I wrote in the teachers name randomly(as Mr. _____, not his actual full name). Needless to say I heard a couple rumblings the next day from people in his class about his name being on wiki, which afirmed to me that my vandalism worked. I only wish I could of seen some of the papers that were returned with the teacher saying "where the hell did you find this?".
I know I'm an a-hole, but I had to do it and it was just so easy, plus never use such an open source as final word.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by teddy ballgame » Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:21 pm 
