Urban Word of the Day
www.urbandictionary.comAugust 08, 2006: wikiality
Reality as decided on by majority rule....
Still, Wikipedia has been shown to contain no more errors than a typical hardcover encyclopedia
> Reality as decided on by majority rule....
Oh, that's what post-modernists call consensual reality I think.
> Still, Wikipedia has been shown to contain no more errors than a typical hardcover encyclopedia
I believe that. But that won't change the minds of certain information sources that, by virtue of publishing re-written coporate press releases, fancy themselves truthier. I refer, for example, to the writers at 'The Register'.
The wiki folks themselves held a conference last weekend to discuss this and other issues. If any of y'all are interested, here's the link:
http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schedule
I've been wondering about something for a long time, and I might as well ask about it now: does wiki have some special meaning, perhaps internet-wise? I know wi-fi does, though I keep forgetting what it stands for...
Quote:
Urban Word of the Day
www.urbandictionary.com
August 08, 2006: wikiality
Reality as decided on by majority rule....
Still, Wikipedia has been shown to contain no more errors than a typical hardcover encyclopedia
Actually, that is definitely not true. Wikipedia made much of the claim, but the methodology was shown to be suspect, and the recording and definition of "errors" was extremely subjective. Britannica even threatened legal action against those responsible for the claim.
> the recording and definition of "errors"
Well, I can imagine. Many of the 'errors' in Britannica are those related to the fact that it is not up to date I suppose. For Britannica these are, of course, not errors - the entries are just dated. They are only wrong (and thus 'errors') to anyone who wants to use the thing as a reference that is abreast of developments. This is where wiki is 'more right';-)
Quote:
> the recording and definition of "errors"
Well, I can imagine. Many of the 'errors' in Britannica are those related to the fact that it is not up to date I suppose. For Britannica these are, of course, not errors - the entries are just dated. They are only wrong (and thus 'errors') to anyone who wants to use the thing as a reference that is abreast of developments. This is where wiki is 'more right';-)
Now you're being VERY disingenuous. It was the article's writers who decided what they would class as errors, in order to make the outcome as favourable as possible to Wikipedia. While there is no better resource for details on the Klingon agricultural calendar or the history of the Xemacs/Emacs war, it's still a dodgy reference source, poorly written, poorly researched, and as your (almost pavlovian) reaction shows, manically sensitive to any criticism. And I say this as someone who uses it every day.
I've noticed errors in Wikipedia. Yeah well. It's handy.
Now that "wi-fi", wireless fidelity, has been mentioned - does it seem to anyone else an inappropriate, inaccurate term? Wireless is accurate, but where does fidelity enter into it?
>where does fidelity enter into it?
what can one expect from a marketing takeoff on HiFi?
Quote:
what can one expect from a marketing takeoff on HiFi?
tsanks, tsuwm. You beat me to it.
If the received signal isn't a faithful reproduction of the transmitted signal it isn't going to work very well, is it, now?
All of the businesses in the Greater Seattle Area which used to have "HiFi" (e.g Magnolia HiFi) in their name have changed to something like "Audio." One suspects that HiFi is on the way out, not in.
wifi -- bigamy, having more than one wifus
Esteemed Dalehileman, an off topic post to tell you that I have been looking for days to refind the post where I added "Not Dalehileman",
which was not meant as a personal directed negative , but to make sure that I did not adress the person I did not mean to adress the answer to. As I did some posts higher up there. But I can't find it back. Not lost in cyberspace yet, but on cybersurface. Alas!
Bran: You are the victim of a Gates loop. Try the Search function. However, it doesn't work like Google; I think you have to enter auxiliary data such as username, title, url, etc, or something
For a year or so I thought the Search wasn't working till I learned that
You are the victim of a Gates loop
Dh => ~Dh
All is permitted.
QED
Oh lords! Gates Loop around my neck! You never know what you have until you got it. Tja, search function, when you forgot the name of the thread. What can I tell them? Supposed faux pas against Dalehileman?
Would they go for it?
Sure you don't mean
vidi vici veni, nuncle?
Sure you don't mean vidi vici veni, nuncle?
No, actually I meant: vici vici veni queeklie.
Wiki wiki (Hawai`ian for 'quickly' and the ab damned origine of wiki.) Veni :- 'I am come'.
But thanks for the correctful, niecely thought.
That's the thing with wiki. You gotta weed out the misinformation
That's one of my objections to the WS search algorithm, or if you prefer, routine. However, the Aministrators are at the mercy of the Gates Loop, just as you and I, and there's virtually nothing you can do about it without access to the heavily-guarded source code