• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

Wikipedia falsely claims the death of Los Angeles entertainer

Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
9,066 (2.09/day)
Likes
287
Location
My house.
Processor AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Brisbane @ 2.8GHz (224x12.5, 1.425V)
Motherboard Gigabyte sumthin-or-another, it's got an nForce 430
Cooling Dual 120mm case fans front/rear, Arctic Cooling Freezer 64 Pro, Zalman VF-900 on GPU
Memory 2GB G.Skill DDR2 800
Video Card(s) Sapphire X850XT @ 580/600
Storage WD 160 GB SATA hard drive.
Display(s) Hanns G 19" widescreen, 5ms response time, 1440x900
Case Thermaltake Soprano (black with side window).
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster Live! 24 bit (paired with X-530 speakers).
Power Supply ThermalTake 430W TR2
Software XP Home SP2, can't wait for Vista SP1.
#1
Recently, it seems like the encyclopedia anybody can edit, Wikipedia, has been getting a lot of bad press. Following the recent New Yorker interview fiasco where one of Wikipedia's chief editors blatantly lied about their identity, Wikipedia has been scrutinized on just about every one of their articles. Enough history. Wikipedia recently wrote that Los Angeles comedian Sinbad had died from a heart attack in their article on him. People started noticing Wikipedia's extreme error right after Sinbad started getting phone calls and e-mails asking where his funeral would be. Wikipedia has since fixed the article, locked it to editing, and hopes that everyone can forgive them. Incidents such as this make people wonder whether they should really trust Wikipedia as much as they probably do. This also brings the validity of Wikipedia as a source for, say, term papers and other school projects, into question.

Show full news post
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
1,455 (0.33/day)
Likes
43
Location
The 13th room on the 13th floor of the 13th buildi
Processor custom dupont risk chip cpu prototype
Motherboard custom ibm x5 solid state carbon mainboard
Cooling industrial technologies prototype dupont custom heat transfer unit
Memory 6x 2gig prototype ecc hnc ddr4
Video Card(s) prototype low energy version nvidia 9 series unnumberd card
Storage 1tb solid state hdd
Display(s) 44 inch samsung plasma screen tv/monitor
Case custom ibm mobile home server case
Audio Device(s) custom Yamaha sound processing processor in spm format
Power Supply 1200watt deli cord custom made dupont type psu
Software sun unix/windows type v
#2
the info on wikipedia should really only be taken as a rough guide since almost all of the info can be edited at any given time for any reason whatsoever.
 

ex_reven

New Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
5,217 (1.27/day)
Likes
159
#3
the info on wikipedia should really only be taken as a rough guide since almost all of the info can be edited at any given time for any reason whatsoever.
I disagree and agree somewhat.

Information can be edited by anyone, which is bad.
But wikipedia's policy for editing asks that the editor place sources of their information and a reason for why the source is more valid than a previously existing source.

Some dumbasses need to read the guidelines before they tamper with the encyclopedia :(
 

Polaris573

Senior Moderator
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
4,268 (0.91/day)
Likes
672
Location
Little Rock, USA
Processor LGA 775 Intel Q9550 2.8 Ghz
Motherboard MSI P7N Diamond - 780i Chipset
Cooling Arctic Freezer
Memory 6GB G.Skill DDRII 800 4-4-3-5
Video Card(s) Sapphire HD 7850 2 GB PCI-E
Storage 1 TB Seagate 32MB Cache, 250 GB Seagate 16MB Cache
Display(s) Acer X203w
Case Coolermaster Centurion 5
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Music
Power Supply OCZ StealthXStream 600 Watt
Software Windows 7 Ultimate x64
#4
This also brings the validity of Wikipedia as a source for, say, term papers and other school projects in question.
No good term paper or other school project would cite an encyclopedia as a source, let alone Wikipedia. That's something people should have learned in high school. The only thing I use wikipedia for is a quick reference to remind of things I already knew, or to lookup something unimportant.
 
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
994 (0.24/day)
Likes
28
Location
SoCal
Processor Intel C2D E6420 (3.2 gHz @ 1.365v)
Motherboard Gigabyte 965P-DS3
Cooling Zalman CNPS9500 LED
Memory 4 x 512mb Corsair XMS2 DDR2 667
Video Card(s) Visiontek HD 4870 512mb
Storage 200gb Maxtor SATA, 400gb WD SATA
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2 ZS
Software Windows XP Pro SP2
#5
I disagree and agree somewhat.

Information can be edited by anyone, which is bad.
But wikipedia's policy for editing asks that the editor place sources of their information and a reason for why the source is more valid than a previously existing source.

Some dumbasses need to read the guidelines before they tamper with the encyclopedia :(
Unless all of the other sources are biased already. Take, for example, Wikipedia's description of South Korea. Some idiot keeps editing it to say that most of Korea (both North and South) is actually part of China. This (and other stuff) really gets to me as China is forging history and no one is double checking to make sure. But enough of my ranting... Wikipedia is a good resource to use for most things (esp. stuff like Biology, since clear websites that get straight to the point are rather difficult to find on the web).
 

ex_reven

New Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
5,217 (1.27/day)
Likes
159
#6
Unless all of the other sources are biased already. Take, for example, Wikipedia's description of South Korea. Some idiot keeps editing it to say that most of Korea (both North and South) is actually part of China. This (and other stuff) really gets to me as China is forging history and no one is double checking to make sure. But enough of my ranting... Wikipedia is a good resource to use for most things (esp. stuff like Biology, since clear websites that get straight to the point are rather difficult to find on the web).
well yes, but technically ALL sources of information are biased.
as polaris says above, its acceptable to use wikipedia, but you need alot more sources to verify that the information you are using has no discrepencies. Something we learned last year in high school while working on an ancient assessment, we were not allowed to use internet sites as general sources, which was ok i guess since ancient rome has LOTS of valuable written sources.
 

WarEagleAU

Bird of Prey
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
10,809 (2.59/day)
Likes
529
Location
Gurley, AL
System Name Boddha Getta Boddha Getta Bah!
Processor AMD FX 6100 @ 4.432Ghz @1.382
Motherboard ASUS M5A99X EVO AMD 990X AMD SB950
Cooling Custom Water. EK 240MM Kit, Supreme HSF - Runs 35C
Memory 2 x 4GB Corsair Vengeance White LP @ 1.35V
Video Card(s) XFX Radeon HD 6870 980/1100
Storage WD Caviar Black 1.0TB, WD Caviar Green 1.0TB, WD 160GB
Display(s) Asus VH222/S 22: (21.5" Viewable) 1920x1080p HDMI LCD Monitor
Case NZXT White Switch 810
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek 5.1
Power Supply NZXT Hale 90 Gold Cert 750W Modular PSU
Software Windows 8.1 Profession 64 Bit
#7
Yeah..but there are mistakes in the encyclopedias and other media as well. Face it folks, no one is perfect. We try as best we can to get information as accurate as possible, but there are hundreds of factors that distract us and what not. I believe Wikipedia to be a damn good invention, as it were. ITs very useful and resources and quick on a search. While it wasnt around when I Was in highschool...alot of my information (which I put in my bibliography) were from encyclopedias, magazines, periodicals and a little from the internet (granted this was from 94 to 97). In fact, one of my sources from the World Book Encyclopedia (and parts from Brittanica, though Brittanica and another pedia contradicted half of the world book info) was wrong...to an extent. Needless to say, it created quite a stir in English/Literature Class and a nice long discussion with no work or speeches for the day :rockout:
 

ex_reven

New Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
5,217 (1.27/day)
Likes
159
#8
In fact, one of my sources from the World Book Encyclopedia (and parts from Brittanica, though Brittanica and another pedia contradicted half of the world book info) was wrong...to an extent. Needless to say, it created quite a stir in English/Literature Class and a nice long discussion with no work or speeches for the day :rockout:
I used to use world book and brittanica in primary school :) the software based encyclopedia though, not the hard copy. And I experienced the exact same contradicting or otherwise misleading information.