GAMES: GameSpot GameFAQs MOVIES: Metacritic Movietome Comic-Con
Saturday, Jul 14, 2007

During the course of one of my many arguments on these boards, I noticed that the person I was arguing with was using some pretty sketchy sources. Some quick google work verified that he was relying on a wikipedia article. Part of the issue was that he was misquoting the article to make it sound more like it supported his position, but it wasn't a very good article to begin with. Since the information in question was about tax-exempt organizations, and I am familiar with where to find filings for U.S. tax-exempt organizations, I decided to update the article with information straight from the horse's mouth. Big mistake. Two days later, I'm completely addicted to editing articles. I've even created one of my own, which I'm sure will bore anyone who reads it to tears. Someone save me...

Posted by Goose, 10:45am
8 Comments | Post a Comment

Comments

Page 1 
« prev  |  next »
I touched up the article a little. There was sparse mentioning of me, which is important.
Posted Jul 16, 2007 6:33 am PT
I love wikipedia, I mainly use it to find out pointless trivia on games and other such things. A good way to not get bored online
Posted Jul 17, 2007 8:03 am PT
Oh man, I feel your pain! Just when I had finally weaned myself from the GS forums, I found out how fun it is to create, edit and correct Wiki articles.

In particular, I find myself focusing on Amusement Park & Ride articles. Though I've left my fingerprints many places, the Holiday World article is my baby. I revamped it from scratch and now it is more concise and informative than most other park articles.

Oh...and whoever created Wiki markup should be shot. It is about as user friendly as a cactus.
Posted Jul 17, 2007 9:29 am PT
I'm finding the tax articles to be a source of frustration. I don't even know where to start on fixing some of them. The combination of people who don't really understand how taxes work with people who do, but can't explain it, has rendered most of the articles completely incomprehensible.
Posted Jul 17, 2007 2:01 pm PT
As a source of trivial information Wikipedia's okay, but I wouldn't want to rely on it for stuff like taxes.
Posted Jul 29, 2007 11:37 pm PT
You used to sing their praises and compare them to Britannica.

And also, one of your edits contained a mistake as well
Posted Aug 11, 2007 7:05 pm PT
Wiki is probably the most frequently used source....I use them often myself. But they are not to be trusted as a reliable reference....I have added information to Wikipedia where I was knowledgeable but have also seen entries I had doubts about and was not sure enough to correct and I'm sure many of you have too....and the incomplete submissions are another matter.
Posted Aug 20, 2007 5:44 am PT
I don't use wiki very much.It'd be simple for someone to just delete all your hard worked on info.
Posted Sep 4, 2007 12:05 am PT
Page 1 
« prev  |  next »
  • Goose
  • Level: 1 (0%)
  • Rank: Mogwai
  • Forum Posts: 10
  • Messages Read: 0


advertisement

Friends

My Friends