• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Wikipedia

Recommended Posts

Srugie    10

I tend to do this often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bawx    0

I found myself reading about marble sculptures like the Rape of Persephone, and the people who carved them. Never took a 2nd look at a sculpture in my life but could not stop reading and Googling for more.

I basically read about stuff I have to idea about. Like World War I, palindromes, Dante's Divine Comedy, obscure stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mokthraka    159

I did this in most of my computer classes. I would read the oddest pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raa    1,551
<snip>

I do it sometimes :laugh:

:laugh: Even before I read that reply, I had that picture at the ready to post here!

Yes, I do that - too much :(

Are you all DONATING?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victor Rambo    5,873

I spend like 2-3 hrs on wikipedia daily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pyehac    0

I do it when I'm at a place with wifi and just waiting for someone or bored while I'm out. I did it once at home, and I actually stayed up from 10pm till 2am (and I had to get up at 5am).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Flash    36

I used to use Wikipedia a lot when I was bored. Now I've got all these random facts in my head, and I'd be lucky if I ever get to use them in conversation. I doubt that I would ever get an opportunity to tell my friends about the wonders of a Diaper Rash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Frank B.    7,151

For me aimlessly browsing Wikipedia is akin to what I did as a teenager: Spend hours at the public library, reading all kinds of books - from history books over linguistics books to physics books.

Yes, I was a nerd and still am one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa    156
Anyone else like to browse wikipedia and find something remotely interesting when they're bored?

No, never. The change you learn biased, factual disinformation is bigger than the change you learn something you want to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Growled    3,880
I used to use Wikipedia a lot when I was bored. Now I've got all these random facts in my head, and I'd be lucky if I ever get to use them in conversation. I doubt that I would ever get an opportunity to tell my friends about the wonders of a Diaper Rash.

You never know. I surprise even myself sometimes when all that random knowledge becomes useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoomKid    15

Yup! I sure do. I get bored a looooooot! So I read up on various stuff. My fav pastime :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa    156

Wikipedia has become tainted as a platform. In view of the following one can't take contentious issues on Wikipedia as valid. The whole system is based on human integrity. Which isn't a very widespread character trait unfortunately.

Consider the “Neutral Point of View” required by Wikipedia policy:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

The editor who takes issue with this event writes:

On Sunday night, I went to the William Connolley wiki page and entered:

Additional criticism appeared on December 19, 2009, in nationalpost.com, as “How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.” This alleges that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

That disappeared within an hour (maybe less); I reinserted it. On Monday night, checked again: text gone. I wished to re-enter it, but the [edit] facility was totally missing from the wiki page. Hardly ever saw that before.

Found a msg from Connolley directly to me:

William Connolley I’m the original author of the paragraph at William Connolley that deals with the Lawrence Solomon article of December 2009. I note you inserted some specific detail that I acutally removed, as I believed it only caused confusion between opinion and fact, and isn’t really necessary, anyway. I don’t want to add any more reverts to that already poorly abused article, so I’m urging you to reconsider your addition of the detail. Cheers. –Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

___________________________________________

Date: Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:53 PM

Wikipedia activity

In 2005, an article in the scientific journal Nature compared the reliability of Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. It discussed Connolley as an example of an expert who regularly contributes to Wikipedia.[8]

A July 2006 article in The New Yorker reported that Connolley briefly became “a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming”, in which a skeptic repeatedly “watered down” the article’s explanation of the greenhouse effect.[9] The skeptic later brought the case before Wikipedia’s arbitration committee, claiming that Connolley was pushing his own point of view in the article by removing material with opposing viewpoints. The arbitration committee imposed a “humiliating one-revert-a-day” editing restriction on Connolley. Wikipedia “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about”, Connolley told The New Yorker.[9] The restriction was later revoked, and Connolley went on to serve as a Wikipedia administrator from January 2006 until 13 September 2009.[9]

An October 2006 article in Nature contrasted the Citizendium online encyclopedia project, which makes a point of recruiting experts from academia, with Wikipedia. It quoted Connolley as saying that “some scientists have become frustrated with Wikipedia”, but that “conflict can sometimes result in better articles”.[10]

___________________________________________

Just appeared in wiki (by Mason):

Additional criticism appeared on December 19, 2009, in nationalpost.com, as “How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.” This alleges that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

__________________________________________

Instantly changed to:

An October 2006 article in Nature contrasted the Citizendium online encyclopedia project, which makes a point of recruiting experts from academia, with Wikipedia. It quoted Connolley as saying that “some scientists have become frustrated with Wikipedia”, but that “conflict can sometimes result in better articles”.[10]

Mason corx, 2009 XII 21, 12:45 AM & again 12:51 AM:

[[Lawrence Solomon]], on December 19, 2009, penned a piece in the ”[[National Post]]” that accused Connolley of editing Wikipedia and using administrative power in order to subvert opinion that disagreed with his own, linking the supposed activity to the [[Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident|Climategate scandal]].<ref>{{Citation| last=Solomon| first=Lawrence| author-link=Lawrence Solomon| title=Wikipedia’s climate doctor| newspaper=National Post| date=December 19, 2009| url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx| accessdate=December 19, 2009}}</ref> The specific allegation was,”How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles,” claiming that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

__________________________

2009 XII 21 midnight: txt missing again. Mason want to re-inserts txt, cannot because the facility [edit] is now missing :

[[Lawrence Solomon]], on December 19, 2009, penned a piece in the ”[[National Post]]” that accused Connolley of editing Wikipedia and using administrative power in order to subvert opinion that disagreed with his own, linking the supposed activity to the [[Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident|Climategate scandal]].<ref>{{Citation| last=Solomon| first=Lawrence| author-link=Lawrence Solomon| title=Wikipedia’s climate doctor| newspaper=National Post| date=December 19, 2009| url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx| accessdate=December 19, 2009}}</ref> The specific allegation was,”How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles,” claiming that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

_____________________________________

Msg from William Connolley to Mason, 2009 XII 22:

William Connolley

I’m the original author of the paragraph at William Connolley that deals with the Lawrence Solomon article of December 2009. I note you inserted some specific detail that I acutally removed, as I believed it only caused confusion between opinion and fact, and isn’t really necessary, anyway. I don’t want to add any more reverts to that already poorly abused article, so I’m urging you to reconsider your addition of the detail. Cheers. –Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/will...rborevisionism/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KyleGM    1

Stumbleupon + Wikipedia = Lots of time wasted

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zain Adeel    197

wikipedia is serious fun..

i do that alot

i open an article..

and then branch it into 10 sub articles.. and read all of them late nite before i sleep

alot of information.. so much fun :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ck2k01    0

I'm obsessed with Wikipedia--it's my number one time waster (more so than Facebook). Just this morning, I was eating some grapes and I thought to myself, "Hey, why don't you Wikipedia grapes." I end up doing that with most things in my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Syanide    618

Stumbleupon + Wikipedia = Lots of time wasted

:rofl:

Haha, yeah, it's an addiction. At least it beats spending time on Facebook, you can actually find something interesting via those two.

I also really like reading it on the phone when I'm traveling somewhere, if there aren't any books to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.