[tcaudilllg]

Man I'm disappointed with Wikipedia. Since its height in 2007 it has lost much of what it had been. I really can't say it's for the better that Wikipedia has become what it has, because its sheer momentum has likely prevented a lot of alternative ideas from even taking shape.

I get the impression that Wikipedia is a juggernaut that failed to realize it was just a stage in a larger scheme. Now even Encarta has failed... but I would rather have Encarta alive and Wikipedia be what it was, than observe what has effectively been the Encartization of Wikipedia.

[Hajo]

What happened? I'm a bit disappointed too, because I found obviously worng information in some articles, and not-so-obviously wrong information in other articles, which made me appear pretty stupid when I used it as base for some arguments, and it turned out that I was just misinformed.

But in general I'm glad that it exists and it's helpful overall, unless one dives into the dpeth of specialist topics - particularly chemistry articles seem to have a lot of wrong information, while the everyday stuff looks quite good.

[tcaudilllg]

They refuse to get the trolls under control. When someone tries to organize against a troll, they get accused of edit warring and banned. (I know because it happened to me).

The quality remains piss-poor because the only people with the guts to stand up to the lunatics who create misinformation are blunt talkers who are specifically discouraged from editing. Another thing: on Wikipedia the "journal trolls" -- the fringe professionals who contribute faulty material to science journals -- get much more attention than they do in professional encyclopedias. You have a lot of people on Wikipedia also, who are not experts in their field and who, nonetheless, take sides against experts they disagree with or even dislike. Professional reputation means nothing on Wikipedia.

[Hajo]

I see. Yes, their policy is to edit freely ... at some point of quality of articles this causes above mentioned problems.

But there was a closed variant of wikipedia, started by one of the wikipedia founders. he wanted to solve just this problem by a smaller circle of selected editors. I don't know what happened to that one, though.

Actually the wrong information in the articles make Wikipedia unsuitable for scientific research. For example I wanted to know which metals are found natively, and Wikipedia has such a list - but some of the metals mentioned there aren't really found natively, except in super-rare cases. The article just list all metals that ever have been found natively, even if it was singular find under extreme conditions - and it leaves the reader unclear which metals are actually found natively in regular conditions on our planet.

It's not wrong, but misleading :/

The other examples I have forgotten.

[tcaudilllg]

The way the mind works, some people are lions and some are lambs. Of course you've got a small minority that are shepherds for the lambs in the face of the lions. The problem with giving everyone unlimited freedom, is that the lions will use this freedom to assert their natural dominance over the lambs. This has been shown time and again throughout history, and Wikipedia is making the same stupid mistakes as were made by capitalists in the 19th century. Idiots who don't understand power, and as such neither understand that they must protect themselves from it nor that the defense against tyranny is the only rationale for having and using it.

[Hajo]

I wouldn't want to call the lambs idiots, but I see your point.

It seems in ancient times the lions were less dominant - a person alone was basically lost, and in the clan, there was group-control to keep the lions in line with the clan goals. Nowadays the society is different, but our social behavior has not adapted.

I should keep the "lions, lambs and shepherds" picture in mind. It seems to fit quite well. I might change the lions to wolves, though, that might be more clear to the people in my place if I use that picture in a discussion.

[RampantCoyote]

And then you have some predatory lions who imagine themselves to be shepherds...
_________________
Tales of the Rampant Coyote - Old-School Game Developer talks Indie Games, RPGs, and the Games Biz

[tcaudilllg]

[RampantCoyote]

Self-righteous zealots? You mean like Chris Matthews, Nancy Pelosi, and Keith Olbermann? Yeah, I totally agree! ;)

Arm the sheep! Arm the sheep!

And the cows...



Er, maybe not...

(Image from an unfinished game I really, really need to finish someday...)
_________________
Tales of the Rampant Coyote - Old-School Game Developer talks Indie Games, RPGs, and the Games Biz

[tcaudilllg]

That would be a good game! I like the communist-inspired imagery. Reminds me of People's Mario.

[RampantCoyote]

Yeah, I named the final boss is Moosolini. And there's a cow resistance movement with bovine commandos led by a cow named... uh, Bessie.

I was originally creating it in Torque, and then shelved it due to technical issues and to work on Frayed Knights. I keep dusting it back off, because it SHOULD be a pretty easy game to complete at this point, with all the assets I've bought and built. Right now I'm looking at Panda 3D as a potential engine.



Yeah, those are cows with wings and rocket-packs strapped to their backs.

I totally keep hijacking your threads. My apologies.

Wikipedia! Yeah, I still find it useful. I'm very much for decentralization and power-to-the-people 'n stuff (and small government and so forth on a political level). But the problems we see there are indicative of what you get when you take things too far and get semi-anarchy. I don't really know what the solution to the problem would be.
_________________
Tales of the Rampant Coyote - Old-School Game Developer talks Indie Games, RPGs, and the Games Biz

[tcaudilllg]

Looks pretty good.

But finish the other one first.

[DeveloperX]

[BadMrBox]

Haha! Cows with jetpacks is always hilarious.
_________________

[DeveloperX]