Wikipedia

[Giant Communist Robot]

When I first saw it, I thought it was kind of flakey. It does have real merit, though. As it matures the articles become more accurate. I especially like the discussion tab where different opinions can be expressed. Sort of like peer review. As time goes by, Wikipedia will continue to grow and accuracy will be found.

I once found an error in the article on numbers theory in one of the editions of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. It was trivial, but because it was print it stayed there until a newer edition came out. Wiki is a much better idea. Change as soon as the error is spotted. In Hawaiian, wiki means quick.

I'm convinced this thing will get better and better. And larger.

[Shapley]

There was a problem a few years back in which politicians or politicians aides were editing and even removing unflattering articles about them. I believe the policies were changed to reduce that, but it has not eliminated it.

The Clintons were some of the most notable Wikieditors. A couple of years ago, we were having a discussion, and I Googled "Nannygate". Google led me to Wikipedia, which had a lengthy article on the Clinton's troubles with appointees who had hired illegal aliens as nannies. You may recall the episode.

Search for "Nannygate" in Wikipedia today, and this is what you find:

Nannygate is the name of several political scandals.

a scandal involving British Cabinet member David Blunkett fast tracking a visa application for his family's nanny "Telegraph owners fire Lawson", The Guardian (2005-06-15).

noncitizen domestic help for U.S. attorney general nominees. Also the name of a scandal involving former New York City Police Chief Bernard Kerik

a scandal including the Swedish trade minister Maria Borelius and culture minister Cecilia Stegö Chilo who both hired live-in nannies without paying taxes[1][2]. See Minister affair at the announcement of the Reinfeldt cabinet.

The Clinton's names are conspicuously absent.

[OperaTenor]

That's it! Wikipedia is a vast left-wing conspiracy!

[Shapley]

That's it! Wikipedia is a vast left-wing conspiracy!

No. It's just that Washington is full of people who fret a lot over their legacies, and Wikipedia gives them some amount of power to alter that particular record of their past. I don't doubt that Mark Foley will be trying to ex-Foley-ate Wikipedia quietly at some time in the future, as will Larry Craig. Sen. Obama reportedly has people watching it regularly to make sure that he remains favourably portrayed in Wiki entries about him.

People who live by their image feel the need to polish it regularly....

[Giant Communist Robot]

Looky at Wiki

[barfle]

The Clinton's names are conspicuously absent.

As is Linda Chavez's.

[barfle]

I believe Wikipedia is a pretty reasonable basic source of information. I've pondered writing up a few articles in it myself (there seem to be a few interests I have where my expertise is impeccable), but they haven't risen to the top of the priority list.

Because it is so easily edited, it is subject to vandalism (as Haggis found out about a year ago), but the owners have taken steps to reduce that threat.

It's garnered a reputation as being pretty good at stuff you know, but pretty poor at stuff you don't know. The stuff I do know tends to be pretty good (although, as I noted above, incomplete in a few places). The stuff I don't know doesn't always convince me or, apparently, many other people, so it has that reputation.

But there sure are a lot of articles on CDs I never care to listen to...

[OperaTenor]

Looky at Wiki

I think I'm going in there to edit out "among".....

[OperaTenor]

That's it! Wikipedia is a vast left-wing conspiracy!

No. It's just that Washington is full of people who fret a lot over their legacies, and Wikipedia gives them some amount of power to alter that particular record of their past. I don't doubt that Mark Foley will be trying to ex-Foley-ate Wikipedia quietly at some time in the future, as will Larry Craig. Sen. Obama reportedly has people watching it regularly to make sure that he remains favourably portrayed in Wiki entries about him.

People who live by their image feel the need to polish it regularly....

Here you go, Shap. You can monitor this and see just who's doing the big cover up:

World Map Showing Nearly Real-Time Locations of Wikipedia Updates

[Shapley]

Thanks! Interesting stuff.

[Giant Communist Robot]

Looky at Wiki

I think I'm going in there to edit out "among".....

Well see? There you go! Isn't Wiki great? Check out the Puccini discussion tab.

[barfle]

There are several related sites:
Wikimedia, where there are a plethora of audio and video recordings, including some of your favorites.
Wikibooks, where there are a plethora of textbooks for all ages.
Wiktionary, an online dictionary.
Wikisource, which appears to be public domain books and other documents.
Wikiversity, a source of online tutorials.
Wikispecies, a directory of living organisms.
Wikiquote, for something said or written by someone to prove your opinion isn't unique.

There are also false wiki sites that appear to mooch off the format in the hope the casual web surfer will find them valid.
Conservapedia which is clearly a source of right-wing propaganda.
RationalWiki, which is biased my way, but ticked off about it.
CreationWiki, which proclaims support of "creation science."
Liberapedia which, as far as I can tell, is an organ of the Democratic Party.
IssuePedia, which seems to be more of a bulletin board for people who are really bored and want everyone else to be, too.

You gotta love the anarchy of the Internet!