Speakeasy forum

General discussion


by marinetbryant / February 13, 2006 12:10 AM PST
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Wikipedia
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Wikipedia
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re: Wikipedia
by MarciaB / February 13, 2006 12:40 AM PST
In reply to: Wikipedia

I have located some ''search'' articles on their site before; and recently (can't remember the term I was searching) ran across a response that stated that there were no more edits from unknown sources being accepted for that particular entry.

I believe the original premise of having a site that was like an encyclopedia, but with the option of ''editing'' being left to pretty much everyone viewing the site/entry, was an interesting and helpful idea. HOWEVER, as with all good ideas, there entered some roadblocks, etc.

From their home page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Main Page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 970,053 articles.

If you click on the ''anyone can edit'' link, you get this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction What is Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by many of its readers. Lots of people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are recorded on article histories and recent changes. Inappropriate changes are usually removed quickly

On that same page is a link regarding ''vandalism,'' which states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism
Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding an opinion once is not vandalism -- it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

Committing vandalism is a violation of the Wikipedia policy; it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with ? if you cannot deal with it yourself, you can seek help from others.

A 2002 study by IBM found that most vandalism on the English Wikipedia is reverted within five minutes (see official results); however, vandals persist as a problem for all users, and it is a good idea when editing an article to check its recent history to see if recent vandalism has gone unnoticed ? even if the last update was more than five minutes prior.

Not all vandalism is blatant, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism: Careful attention needs to be given to whether the new data or information is right or whether it is vandalism.

It appears they are trying diligently to avoid scandals and such, but there are the occasions where an ''edit'' may be retrieved and shared throughout the WWW prior to it being truly edited and corrected by the site coordinators.


Collapse -
Fair and balanced reporting?
by EdH / February 13, 2006 1:03 AM PST
In reply to: Wikipedia

How come there were no examples of entries being altered to reflect poorly on Democrats?

Or weren't there any?

Collapse -
by grimgraphix / February 13, 2006 1:16 AM PST

the article was about the common practice of both parties political assistants going into the on line articles and changing facts.

More than 1,000 changes have been traced to House and Senate IP (Internet Protocol) addresses...


Collapse -
Then why no mention of Republicans doing this?
by EdH / February 13, 2006 1:20 AM PST
In reply to: Because...

Seems unbalanced to me.

Or maybe there weren't any? Where does it say "both parties"?


Collapse -
examples of both R. and Dem. records
by grimgraphix / February 13, 2006 1:35 AM PST

were cited as having been changed...

Aides to Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., acknowledged they erased a Wikipedia entry... to improve the congressmans image.

Other alterations are more mysterious.

The Wikipedia entry for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Fort Morgan,...After an anonymous contributor altered the text, the congresswoman's entry presented a more moderate image...
no one has admitted to this.

Out of a thousand instances your concerned that not enuf Democrats were targeted?


Collapse -
Which Democrats were targeted?
by EdH / February 13, 2006 4:23 AM PST

The fact that slander aginst the Congresswoman was corrected is not the same as the other kinds of alterations.

Collapse -
by grimgraphix / February 13, 2006 5:16 AM PST

Her voting record is slanderous?


Collapse -
Someone's interpretation of her voting record
by EdH / February 13, 2006 5:29 AM PST
In reply to: Slander?

Just like the TV ads that say"...so and so voted to deny your rights..."

So yes, slander. Don't confuse a voting record with someone's propaganda.

Collapse -
Spin works both ways Ed
by grimgraphix / February 13, 2006 5:39 AM PST

You won't give credit for the Dem. mentioned as owning up to changing his article but you will cry foul if a Rep. voting record isn't glossed over? That is a mighty big dichotomy to rationalize in my opinion.


Collapse -
Here's the differenmce...
by EdH / February 13, 2006 5:47 AM PST

Musgrave's alteration makes her entry more positive but not inaccurate; Marty Meehan's deletes information that was not a slam against him, but merely truthful and information worth knowing.

Not "rationalizing" anything. Truth, baby, truth.

Collapse -
The WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me...
by grimgraphix / February 13, 2006 5:57 AM PST

Context is the "bullets" used in so many battles here at SE.

I can see your point of view... but... so many politicians spend a great deal of time glossing over the implications of their votes... They tell you what they did on the campaign trail but forgo the tale of the domino effect their votes have contributed to.

I like the details whether it's a Democrat or a Republican being discussed... but thats just me. Wink


Collapse -
There was, EdH
by Angeline Booher / February 13, 2006 1:24 AM PST
Collapse -
But his entry was altered to make him look good!
by EdH / February 13, 2006 1:32 AM PST
In reply to: There was, EdH
Some changes are clearly self-serving. Aides to Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., acknowledged they erased a Wikipedia entry that reminded readers how the seven-term congressman once vowed to serve no more than four terms.
Collapse -
The difference between Wiki and journalists
by dirtyrich / February 13, 2006 5:27 AM PST
In reply to: Wikipedia

is that Wiki upfront tells you that they are not the "definitive" source of information... they allow for the chance of being wrong.
Journalists, on the other hand, protray themselves as presenting absolute truth.

Collapse -
journalists do print retractions
by grimgraphix / February 13, 2006 5:34 AM PST

The problem I have with many writers/talking heads is that they represent themselves as journalists when they really are political pundits writing op/ed pieces rather than investigative journalism. Opinion... even informed opinion... is easy and plentiful to find.

Don't lump everyone with a byline into the same general category. Many good men and women have died trying to reveal the facts as they knew them so that kibitzers like us can bicker at each other.


Collapse -
With all the recent scandals
by dirtyrich / February 13, 2006 6:43 AM PST

by established journalists, I find it hard to simply take the word of reporters, even those who are supposedly just reporting the facts.
Journalism has become politicized, and yet journalists proclaim that they are unbiased.

Collapse -
by marinetbryant / February 13, 2006 6:04 AM PST
In reply to: Wikipedia

Doggone people, it was just a silly article about how easy it is to change certain things and to be careful about what you read. But noooooooo....

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?