Uncyclopdia?

Commander Spleen · Post by **Commander Spleen** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 14:19

Djaser wrote:
KeenRush wrote:Consider you're for example a politician. The elections are nearing. Someone edits your wiki info a bit... People take Wikipedia for granted... ...
Ah the great conspiracy theory.

A viable one. The propaganda machine is a very real device. Disinformation, as with fear, can be a valuable strategy. The point still stands: one must be wary of trusting the information and its objectivity without question.

Post by **KeenRush** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 14:22

@Spleen: There's nothing wrong with it's mission, but I think it's childish in the sense that they think it will work or can be accomplished. But at least having such a goal officially is good for brainwashing people.

Djaser wrote:Ehm no, Wikiwikiweb was the first to use the database program wiki. The encyclopaedia concept as the Keenwiki uses is from Wikipedia, you won't find that on Wikiwkiweb.

Well, yes, the engine KeenWiki uses is the same one Wikipedia uses, MediaWiki. But program code doesn't equal concept. The concept of it is much older than Wikipedia, and the same features have been in use for long before MediaWiki. MediaWiki is just one layer, it has nothing to do with the actual wiki. Most people have no idea what MediaWiki even is, people don't connect wiki software to the actual wiki. I don't hate MediaWiki engine, but there are better wiki engines available.

Djaser wrote:So we agree that both Wikipedia and Keenwiki are biased?

Sure, and I haven't stated KeenWiki is not, as far as I remember.

Djaser wrote:Ah the great conspiracy theory. Don't you think you exaggerate things that happen on a small scale there?

Who knows. Small things written there can have a big effect. And even small effect is a big one if it influences millions of people.

Djaser wrote:Democracy is something rare in internet communities, this place is no example.

Well, true, but because of Wikipedia's popularity it's more worrying, especially if you're that politician and can't control your own information and are in some admin's power. And yeah, I bet Wikipedia isn't connected to any government stuff or organized crime.

Bound to be.

Djaser wrote:What's the big deal? You used to delete closed topics on the pckf.

Everything in Wikipedia leaves history, but the owners can do things absolutely nobody else can and erase unfavourable stuff from the history altogether. Deleting spam or other material breaking rules from a forum -- which is fundamentally different to wiki system -- isn't comparable to this. The big deal, well, nothing but easier way for them and for whoever they make deals with to control the people reading that info as true.

KeenEmpire · Post by **KeenEmpire** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 15:23

In theory: your complaints are valid.

In practice: they almost never come up. Wiki has ended up more objective than most sites. On those topics I have prior knowledge in, I rarely find a case where I could improve on its objectivity (and, on occasion, I find that it improves on mine). Of course, this depends on how many people are reviewing the article.

Post by **xtraverse** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 23:00

Wikipedia is great for simply learning about something you're curious about. Nobody in the academic world considers it a legitimate source of information, but it can still be helpful because a good deal of the articles list sources.

It's quite interesting seeing the relation between various companies and their Wikipedia entries. Recent reports have come out showing pharmaceutical companies trying to edit out information about the dangers of certain prescription drugs. Stuff like this can reveal more than wikipedia originally intended I bet.

Anti-Gary · Post by **Anti-Gary** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 23:37

Whenever I get an assignment from school or anything, I always go to wikipedia, BUT I do go to other sites to get more infomation.

MortimerInBlack · Post by **MortimerInBlack** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:32

Yes, wikipedia worries me, if not about political stuff like KR said, then more like the exact numerical values of things like Earth's orbit and stuff that I look up for my writing.

This proly does not happen often, but 1 false error and your stuff is flawed, toast. On the other hand, i can't think of a better way to collect as much info as possible on as much topics as possible than to have free editing, so... yet i still consider the concept of free editing as fundamentally flawed for this very reason.

I have an idea, KR. Make a topic on wikipedia on why wikipedia is wrong/dangerous/w/e. I would luv to see what happens.

ckguy · Post by **ckguy** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:40

Whenever I check Wikipedia on stuff I already know, it passes the test. I am very surprised how well the system works. It seems like the information would be of dubious quality, but I rarely see any "spammed" topics. Either I slightly more cynical about people than I should be, or their moderators are really good.

Commander Spleen · Post by **Commander Spleen** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:27

MortimerInBlack wrote:Make a topic on wikipedia on why wikipedia is wrong/dangerous/w/e.

link me beautiful

Shadow Master · Post by **Shadow Master** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:01

Nifty.

Post by **KeenRush** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 14:41

Needless to say they're bound to have a page like that, otherwise it'd be way too suspicious.

KeenEmpire · Post by **KeenEmpire** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 17:00

CK Guy wrote:Whenever I check Wikipedia on stuff I already know, it passes the test. I am very surprised how well the system works. It seems like the information would be of dubious quality, but I rarely see any "spammed" topics. Either I slightly more cynical about people than I should be, or their moderators are really good.

Something which might be related is the study that turned out the "knowledge" of the collective is more accurate than even the "knowledge" of the expert. For example, if many thousands of people are asked to guess the weight of a cow, the average of those guesses will be surprisingly accurate, something like only a few pounds off - much more accurate than when only "experts" (farmers and whatnot) try to guess. Of course, this is not entirely a good parallel.

But a parallel might be of this sort: even if someone tries to manipulate the information on wiki for their own political agenda (similarly to grossly underestimating the weight of the cow), there will always be others who have a different agenda (high weights, accurate weights, w/e) and "rebalance" the weights. In the long run, the "average" would probably return to normal. Just how quickly it turns to normal is a surprising feature of wiki.

Djaser · Post by **Djaser** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 18:30

KR, I can only praise your critical attitude towards information you come across but I think you're exaggerating things. I wish I'd have to time to post a longer reply to you, but maybe at a latter date.

KeenEmpire wrote:
CK Guy wrote:Whenever I check Wikipedia on stuff I already know, it passes the test. I am very surprised how well the system works. It seems like the information would be of dubious quality, but I rarely see any "spammed" topics. Either I slightly more cynical about people than I should be, or their moderators are really good.
Something which might be related is the study that turned out the "knowledge" of the collective is more accurate than even the "knowledge" of the expert. For example, if many thousands of people are asked to guess the weight of a cow, the average of those guesses will be surprisingly accurate, something like only a few pounds off - much more accurate than when only "experts" (farmers and whatnot) try to guess. Of course, this is not entirely a good parallel.

Sorry but I do not believe this. Ask similar questions in cities with millions of people and it would become a fact that brown cows give chocolate milk and black cows normal. And to use it even more against you: according to most people in the world there is a god. Therefore we can hereby declare with certainty that being an atheist is wrong.

ckguy · Post by **ckguy** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 19:07

... and that the king goes on his own color, castling involves swapping the king and a rook, and en passant is an in-joke smart-asses use to trick ch3ss n00bs.

KeenEmpire · Post by **KeenEmpire** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 21:01

Djaser wrote: Sorry but I do not believe this. Ask similar questions in cities with millions of people and it would become a fact that brown cows give chocolate milk and black cows normal. And to use it even more against you: according to most people in the world there is a god. Therefore we can hereby declare with certainty that being an atheist is wrong.

There was a study done on the exact question that I mentioned. I admit they didn't ask if brown cows gave chocolate milk. Yet I find dubious your claim that such a thing is a majority opinion.

---

Your proposed study introduces a potential flaw, by forcing a binary outcome. Such an outcome is only applicable if the mean is at 0.5. A much better question (although admittedly, it is not much better) is "how sure are you, between 0% and 100%, that brown cows produce chocolate milk?"

In addition, because you are only asking people in cities, this is not truly a random sample. Whether or not this has much effect I do not know for certain.

In either case, it is rather unlikely that we can "declare with certainty that being an atheist is wrong". Adopting your naive framework, even if (as shown here) all the non-religious people voted 0 and everyone else voted 1, the probability of there being a God would still be recorded at 84%. If even one person voted something which is not 1, the probability would not be 100%.

Djaser · Post by **Djaser** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 21:19

So you're saying that you collective knowledge only works when you give people a limited amount of choices. I could impossibly have guessed that based on your previous post but still, how do you apply this on wikipedia?

KeenEmpire wrote:
Djaser wrote: Sorry but I do not believe this. Ask similar questions in cities with millions of people and it would become a fact that brown cows give chocolate milk and black cows normal. And to use it even more against you: according to most people in the world there is a god. Therefore we can hereby declare with certainty that being an atheist is wrong.
There was a study done on the exact question that I mentioned. I admit they didn't ask if brown cows gave chocolate milk. Yet I find dubious your claim that such a thing is a majority opinion.

I believe there was an investigation with this outcome. I couldn't give you a source and my word on this is worthless but it's my firm believe that the majority of the people are stupid.

In addition, because you are only asking people in cities, this is not truly a random sample. Whether or not this has much effect I do not know for certain.

True, true. But given how much people live in cities I doubt that the outcome of rural areas would make much difference to end result.

In either case, it is rather unlikely that we can "declare with certainty that being an atheist is wrong". Adopting your naive framework, even if (as shown here) all the non-religious people voted 0 and everyone else voted 1, the probability of there being a God would still be recorded at 84%. If even one person voted something which is not 1, the probability would not be 100%.

Right but if you ask people to guess the weight of a cow the end result comes only close to reality, it will never be exact. So we can easily apply this on this religion based question. 84% is closer to 100% than 0%. Conclusion: god exists, your theory proved it.