Wikipedia as a concept

Submitted by Robert Szeleney on Sun, 2008-03-02 21:19.

Ok, let me talk about the SkyOS article on wikipedia. Every now and then I get a message from one of the SkyOS community members letting me know that hot things are going on at the wikipedia SkyOS article.

For example, one time there was a guy claiming that SkyOS has been ported to intels 64bit architecture. After letting this guy know that SkyOS has not been ported to this architecture yet, all you get to hear is that you either have no clue, don't use SkyOS at all (ehm, what??) or simply want to spread FUD. Other people tried to teach me that SkyOS can run Windows applications. If you try to explain them that this isn't supported, they simply say that you are wrong on pretend that they are using Internet Explorer on SkyOS at this very moment. Isn't this funny? Other people want to teach you what features your software has? (This is like trying to convince BMW that their cars use cucumber and not tires as wheels.)

Other times, like very recently, people dig up multi year old speculations, complete wrong information in this case, and without any further researching just post them into the article. This are the times I wonder why people do this at all? are they bored, did their moms rant with them and in order to calm down they think it is a good idea to write complete nonsense into a wikipedia article?

Other times, multiple times already, like someone said, people most likely just discovered the wikipedia delete function. Giving stupid delete reason maybe they try to raise their masculinity by doing this. I don't know, really. People just could talk to me or any other project member about things they are upset with, we have a IRC, we have forums, we read mails, etc. So maybe they aren't upset, and just want to harm SkyOS, but has this to be done at the world famous free encyclopedia? which actually should deliver facts and not opinions submitted by pubescent children.

Sometimes this just makes me no trust into wikipedia as a concept at all.

/me sitting back relaxing, and trying to find out why a few people actually act in such a way...



bclwxq

dpjaoi bclwxq

cOINlHr

glWzSuM cOINlHr

wIZKJK

fSPSbqQ wIZKJK

Levitra stoical Golden

Levitra stoical Golden

Marketing research tool

Marketing research tool Deject merchantability

Other times, like actual

Other times, like actual recently, humans dig up multi year old speculations, complete amiss advice in this case, and after any added researching just column them into the article. This are the times I admiration why humans do this at all? are they bored, did their moms bluster with them and in adjustment to calm down they anticipate it is a acceptable abstraction to address complete nonsense into a wikipedia article?

Last thing I heard was that

Last thing I heard was that there was no real progress due to an extra family situation.
Although we all would like to see an update, I am pretty sure that Robert will announce it here if there is something to announce.

---------------------------------------
Debra Trotter

Wikipedia as a concept

I remember a study done a few years ago when Wikipedia was compared to a few commercial reference sites (Encyclopedia Brittanica, etc.) and stood the comparison very well. Like most "open" projects, bugs (errors) were exposed and fixed fairly quickly, and it was a good example of the best of peer-reviewed publications. I guess that in those days, it's user base was much smaller and more responsible; they really understood the hacker ethic behind the concept of open, free information. Since then, computers have stopped being "geek toys" and are as ubiquitous as toasters, and the typical "user" is an adolescent who was given a computer in lieu of a babysitter or tutor.

i liked it very muchtestking

i liked it very muchtestking 642-975

hmm

I voted on the article, wikipedia is quite a nice website but i don't really trust the information up on there anyway.

Goodluck with it buddy.

Ps. update on skyos please? :P