STRIP FOR May 8, 2009
Comments
User Name: aielman
May 8, 2009
+8
On November 14, 2006 Carol claimed her first baby weighed 11 pounds. Topper then claimed that he passed a kidney stone the size of a small horse that went on to win the Kentucky derby. Are we running out of original ideas? http://www.dilbert.com/2006-11-14
User Name: mrmerlot
May 8, 2009
+1
I have had recent experiences with Wikipedia which have highlighted a frustrating tension on that site (I've written about my experiences <a href="http://www.mrmerlot.com/?p=5">here</a> and <a href="http://www.mrmerlot.com/?p=16">here</a>). On the one hand, you have yahoos like Topper who basically vandalize articles for whatever reason. On the other hand, you have well-meaning contributors like myself who are just trying to learn the ropes. Managing this chaos are a handful of folks who have poured many hours (well-spent or otherwise, you're call) into keeping their "jurisdiction" within Wikipedia free and clear of garbage. Since that core group of admins hasn't grown much in the past three years, they are finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between the jerks and the honest folks contributing to the space. Naturally, some assume the worst and act accordingly (this was my experience). Others take a more balanced approach. It's a fascinating study in social dynamics and online communities!
User Name: magallanes
May 8, 2009
-3
@leevclarke :
"It is the reader's responsibility to check these sources, since Wikipedia only brings together information already available elsewhere. If you read something on Wikipedia and there is no source cited, or if the cited source does not verify the information given, or if the source cannot be considered reliable, don't trust the information! Anyone could have added it."
OF COURSE NOT, it is responsibility of the EDITOR.
Wikipedia is weird, sometimes they allow unverifiable information but other times its deleted at whim even if you put some trusty source. So, its easy to piss off real collaborator (mainly scholars, teacher and such), lefting only a bunch of fanboys to manage wikipedia as their personal lair.
"It is the reader's responsibility to check these sources, since Wikipedia only brings together information already available elsewhere. If you read something on Wikipedia and there is no source cited, or if the cited source does not verify the information given, or if the source cannot be considered reliable, don't trust the information! Anyone could have added it."
OF COURSE NOT, it is responsibility of the EDITOR.
Wikipedia is weird, sometimes they allow unverifiable information but other times its deleted at whim even if you put some trusty source. So, its easy to piss off real collaborator (mainly scholars, teacher and such), lefting only a bunch of fanboys to manage wikipedia as their personal lair.
User Name: red33410
May 8, 2009
+1
Hey, Kev! What about the one you cut loose that got elected POTUS? *laughter*
User Name: leevclarke
May 8, 2009
+4
Funny strip, and I totally take it in the way in which it was intended. However, I must speak up in defence of Wikipedia, of which I am an editor. People do not seem to realise that Wikipedia is not a primary source of information - it never has been, and it never will be. In fact, there are a number of policies in place to prevent this, for example the policy against publishing original research on Wikipedia. Every single fact on Wikipedia must (ideally) be verifiable with a reliable, independent, third-party source, and this is usually indicated with in-line citations.
It is the reader's responsibility to check these sources, since Wikipedia only brings together information already available elsewhere. If you read something on Wikipedia and there is no source cited, or if the cited source does not verify the information given, or if the source cannot be considered reliable, don't trust the information! Anyone could have added it.
It has become fashionable lately to mock Wikipedia, but this belittles the efforts of all the countless people who contribute to this freely-available information resource. It would be amazing if people would help to improve this invaluable project instead of trying to discredit it for its shortcomings.
It is the reader's responsibility to check these sources, since Wikipedia only brings together information already available elsewhere. If you read something on Wikipedia and there is no source cited, or if the cited source does not verify the information given, or if the source cannot be considered reliable, don't trust the information! Anyone could have added it.
It has become fashionable lately to mock Wikipedia, but this belittles the efforts of all the countless people who contribute to this freely-available information resource. It would be amazing if people would help to improve this invaluable project instead of trying to discredit it for its shortcomings.
OR
TO SAVE YOUR
FAVORITE STRIPS
