I hate Wikipedia!

[Keith]

It was blocked for notability reasons. They don't consider Steve's site big enough to warrant an article.

Looking at where he ranks on Alexa and Technorati, that seems fair.

Steve's Blog is awesome, but there are millions of blogs out there and Wikipedia have to draw the line somewhere.

OTOH, apparently it's significant enough to spawn a blog dedicated to anti-Steve. :? ie. Is Steve Delusional

[Izzy88]

Originally Posted by FuturePast

A review in Nature of the accuracy of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica found no significant difference in accuracy between the two.

Old post, but I felt inclined to post my own little comment without making a new topic.

First, I think it's strange that people will quote that nature study like it proves something. They tested 40+ articles out of what, thousands that Wikipedia has? Wikipedia is just a place where the average Joe can post his own point of view on things.

[Maheep]

Oh! wise words, finally somebody seems to make the point. Took me fifteen minues to go through the gibber. Haters you sre as lame as Wikipedia.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by ElizaJ

Not to mention that nothing that is written on Wikipedia is ever confirmed and/or verified by anyone, much less an independent third party.

The focus might have shifted since you originally posted this, but Wikipedia has a strong "no original material" policy. Anything questionable is likely to rapidly get slugged with a "[cite]" tag (which displays "Citation needed" until a reference to external evidence is added).

That's better than your average newspaper where you pretty much have to just take their word for it that they sourced the info legitimately. (Though this is not an entirely fair comparison since Wikipedia just amalgamates the news rather than investigating it).

Just take a look at the number of references that were required at Steve Pavlina entry before they were happy!

P.S. The Wikipedia article on Steve is back up these days. Having produced an award-winning computer game (Dweep!) was enough to tip him over the edge of the 'notability' criteria. Now that he's a published author, too his notability should be undeniable.

[Trezker]

No free image? Someone take a picture!

[Time]

Originally Posted by FuturePast

You seem to be confusing a bug with a feature. This is how it's intended to work.
All past versions of articles are stored, and in this instance you would be well within your rights to revert to the last unvandalised version.

Similarly, if you found something to be inaccurate, then change it.

Sounds easy, but it's not that simple, FuturePast. I recently added a change to the entry for the Disney film "Pinocchio", pointing out that, contrary to an entry elswhere in Wiki which could have been mistaken to imply that the film contained swear words, (ie "jackass"), that word was not considered a swear word at the time the film was made.

It was a fine point, but I felt it needed to be made, to avoid erroneous impressions of a family film being spread about.

Well, the entry was obliterated within a couple of hours. I received some obscure email informing me that I was being issued a "level2 warning about possible vandalism".

It would almost be funny if it weren't so insulting.

What I'm saying is that the people who run the site should not be relied upon for appropriate decisions as to approved content. And if that's the case, the reliability of that content is probably suspect.

[Matt Willard]

You think Wikipedia is addictive? Then don't go to TVTropes, you will be scanning that all day.

[Lane20]

i hate weki.tooooooooooooo

[vMike]

I also have a mildly progressive wikipedia addiction

But at least you learn something interesting, so probably not one of the worst addictions to have