bobbartop
bobbartop
Joined: Mar 15, 2016
  • Threads: 95
  • Posts: 2043
April 23rd, 2019 at 9:17:52 PM permalink
"Steve" on Wiki, 3 million edits, 35,000 original articles. Omg. Get. A. Life.

And how much was he paid? Squat. Zip. Zero. Nada. The guy does it for free. lmao

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meet-the-man-behind-a-third-of-whats-on-wikipedia/
Don't believe anything until it is officially denied.
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 97
  • Posts: 13577
April 23rd, 2019 at 9:54:34 PM permalink
Quote: bobbartop

"Steve" on Wiki, 3 million edits, 35,000 original articles. Omg. Get. A. Life.

And how much was he paid? Squat. Zip. Zero. Nada. The guy does it for free. lmao

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meet-the-man-behind-a-third-of-whats-on-wikipedia/



As a volunteer here, I don't understand your attitude about this. Wiki is an amazing collaboration, and nearly everyone who contributes is unpaid. Why not appreciate the depth of the guy's commitment?
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
RS
RS 
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8477
Thanks for this post from:
Mintyodiousgambit
April 23rd, 2019 at 10:16:33 PM permalink
I agree with babs on this one. Don't make fun of the guy because he's doing something that (AFAICT) is helpful to everyone. Sounds like he's pretty damn smart and good at researching stuff and I assume he enjoys doing it.

I wonder how he'd fare on Jeopardy. Probably better than BBB and Wizard. :) :)

I don't like writing it as "Jeopardy!" because that's stupid to have an exclamation point (mark?) in the title.
# Свободный Натан
bobbartop
bobbartop
Joined: Mar 15, 2016
  • Threads: 95
  • Posts: 2043
April 24th, 2019 at 2:19:57 AM permalink
Quote: RS

I agree with babs on this one. Don't make fun of the guy because he's doing something that (AFAICT) is helpful to everyone. Sounds like he's pretty damn smart and good at researching stuff and I assume he enjoys doing it.



Don't you recognize a slant? Is Wiki gospel? I think there's a whole generation that believes it is gospel. No wonder we're so screwed up. Communist professors teaching higher "education", and "Steve". We're doomed.
Don't believe anything until it is officially denied.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 217
  • Posts: 10937
April 24th, 2019 at 2:38:58 AM permalink
Some people have their weird place in life. I can't see making that your life unless you are both rich and bored. But each his own.
Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing
bobbartop
bobbartop
Joined: Mar 15, 2016
  • Threads: 95
  • Posts: 2043
April 24th, 2019 at 3:03:05 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Some people have their weird place in life.



Yeah, his is at his parents' house.

How about you, AZD? Do you see the liberal slant of Wiki, as I do? And the damage from a whole generation treating it as gospel?
Don't believe anything until it is officially denied.
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 290
  • Posts: 8073
April 24th, 2019 at 3:26:27 AM permalink
wikipedia is very good on scientific and other technical topics, just beware of pop culture topics, politics, and the like. As far as a liberal slant, it's vulnerable depending on contributors, but I see no reason to particularly cite it.

if you make a contribution it may be something you will leave behind for others long after you are gone

I will quickly fix a typo but can't quite make myself contribute much; some of what little I did is still there.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
darkoz
darkoz 
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 211
  • Posts: 5287
April 24th, 2019 at 3:34:16 AM permalink
When working on my film project Dark Oz there was an incorrect fact mentioned by a newspaper

IMDB prided itself on only using "sourced" facts while everyone condemned Wikipedia because anyone can change or edit the facts.

The idea being the whole of humanity will police itself.

End result:

I successfully changed the wrong info on Wikipedia while IMDB refused my changes citing the newspaper published report as correct

So to this day IMDB with its vetted system has the WRONG info while Wikipedia has the correct info
RS
RS 
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8477
Thanks for this post from:
odiousgambit
April 24th, 2019 at 5:38:01 AM permalink
Quote: bobbartop

Don't you recognize a slant? Is Wiki gospel? I think there's a whole generation that believes it is gospel. No wonder we're so screwed up. Communist professors teaching higher "education", and "Steve". We're doomed.


If you're talking about political slant, I have no idea. I rarely read wikipedia when it comes to stuff that is or may be political. Like odiousgambit mentioned, I mostly just use it for trying to get a brief understanding of something I'm not familiar about. It's a good starting point when learning about a new subject. As far as I can tell, I can't remember reading anything on wikipedia that has an obvious political slant.
# Свободный Натан
Minty
Minty
Joined: Jan 23, 2015
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 330
April 24th, 2019 at 6:11:43 AM permalink
There's a whole community of people dedicated to fixing the errors on Wikipedia. Happens on other sites too, like Ancestry. I kind of look at it as an achievement to have curated such a large amount of information. I'm guessing some of it is internalized, and any learning is a good thing! What I'd be more interested in, is how many people benefitted from his edits? Thousands? Millions?

I always thought not being able to is Wikipedia as a source was a bit silly, but somewhat understandable. Lots of friends used the sources Wikipedia cited, and I see no issue in that.
"Favorable bets are called 'investments.' Unfavorable bets constitute 'gambling.' -William Poundstone quoting John Kelly Jr. in Fortune's Formula

  • Jump to: