PDA

View Full Version : Illuminati of Wikipedia


logic bomb
03-01-2009, 08:24 PM
73.4 Percent of All Wikipedia Edits Are Made By Roughly 1,400 People

Posted by Lacy Hart 12/30/2008 4:52 PM

http://www.collegeotr.com/college_otr/734_percent_of_all_wikipedia_edits_are_made_by_rou ghly_1400_people_17499


Most college professors discourage students from using Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, and if you’ve ever wondered why, here is the reason:

There are millions of people who browse Wikipedia in any given month, but only 2 percent of them (roughly 1,400) are responsible for editing nearly 75 percent of the information on the entire website.

In other words, Wikipedia, while editable by anyone, is fueled almost entirely by the knowledge of a small, select group of individuals.

Consider them the Illuminati of Wikipedia; they control the flow of information that often finds its way into our college essays, despite our professors’ best attempts to dissuade us from citing it.

The source of this startling revelation? The face of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales.

But, [Wales] insisted, the truth was rather different: Wikipedia was actually written by "a community ... a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers" where "I know all of them and they all know each other". Really, "it's much like any traditional organization."

[…] So did the Gang of 500 actually write Wikipedia? Wales decided to run a simple study to find out: he counted who made the most edits to the site. "I expected to find something like an 80-20 rule: 80% of the work being done by 20% of the users, just because that seems to come up a lot. But it's actually much, much tighter than that: it turns out over 50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users ... 524 people. ... And in fact the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits." The remaining 25% of edits, he said, were from "people who [are] contributing ... a minor change of a fact or a minor spelling fix ... or something like that."

You know what that means: Wikipedia will never be accepted by professors, so get used to going to the—gasp—library and reading—cringe—books.

grachtengordel
03-01-2009, 08:59 PM
>http://www.ratemyeverything.net/image/11607/0/Thats_no_moon.ashx

eternal_spirit
03-01-2009, 09:08 PM
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11586

dreamweaver
03-01-2009, 09:09 PM
73.4 Percent of All Wikipedia Edits Are Made By Roughly 1,400 People

Posted by Lacy Hart 12/30/2008 4:52 PM

http://www.collegeotr.com/college_otr/734_percent_of_all_wikipedia_edits_are_made_by_rou ghly_1400_people_17499


Most college professors discourage students from using Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, and if you’ve ever wondered why, here is the reason:

There are millions of people who browse Wikipedia in any given month, but only 2 percent of them (roughly 1,400) are responsible for editing nearly 75 percent of the information on the entire website.

In other words, Wikipedia, while editable by anyone, is fueled almost entirely by the knowledge of a small, select group of individuals.

This is crap reasoning, considering that professional encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta, as well as reference publications like the Oxford English Dictionary, have even smaller numbers of editors. Academic textbooks have even less people working on them.

What the professors actually object to is that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia, regardless of credentials (or lack of them). The number of people editing isn't the issue, I think the author of the article has misunderstood them.

The main issue with Wikipedia is inconsistency. Some editors are very conscientious and some of their pages are of an exceptionally high standard, while others are unbelievable dross. It's pot luck, really, as to who's editing the pages that you are interested in.

elirien
03-01-2009, 09:21 PM
look at the sources of the entries rather then the text itself if you are in ignorance about that topic.

dooby
04-01-2009, 06:00 PM
An excellent website tells you which organisations/IP ranges edit Wikipedia. It used to be VERY interested - places such as the Ministry of Defence and BBC external IP ranges were showing a large number of edits. I think they're a little more wise to this scanner now, but I haven't checked very recently.

Here's the link: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

Dooby :)

xpleet
04-01-2009, 06:46 PM
And then you have the different contents in different languages.


In german I found atleast I II III IV King Nebukadnezar's on Wikipedia with maybe 2-5 lines of text for each, in the english wiki I found 1 article (lots text) for it and that was about Nebukadnezar II.

Pretty sad actually but I wouldn't wonder since the Zionist strongholds in America :D.

rhydra
04-01-2009, 07:17 PM
Look at the Wikipedia pace on Common Purpose.

Common Purpose UK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "facts" which seem to have been written by an activist.
The criticisms however, those cite words such as "claim," throw the background of the critics in, "eurosceptic" for instance and even drop the BNP bomb.

The quote, Gerrish has stated that Common Purpose wants "to kill you" deliberately tries to set the tone that any criticism should not be taken seriously.

So indeed, a small amount of people with an agenda do swarm like parasites, on any free and easily accessible informational resource.

thetonic
04-01-2009, 07:23 PM
>http://www.ratemyeverything.net/image/11607/0/Thats_no_moon.ashx

LOL to the fucking hole!!!!

If you use wikipedia as a source your an asshat clown!

grachtengordel
05-01-2009, 10:43 AM
The main issue with Wikipedia is inconsistency. Some editors are very conscientious and some of their pages are of an exceptionally high standard, while others are unbelievable dross. It's pot luck, really, as to who's editing the pages that you are interested in.

No , the issue is that it is impartial. WIKIPEDIA is totally infiltrated with shills, they even openly announced that they are officially supervised by the ADL who have been editing it for years. Groups like the ADL have people editing it FULL TIME.

How I use wikipedia is I look at a subject I am researching, If wiki totally denies the info , I know i'm onto something. One good think to check is the RED WORDS, these are redundant 'links' to wiki pages that have been DELETED.

whatever bores trying to w

cafetimes1991
05-01-2009, 11:23 AM
http://tcritic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/wikipedia.jpg

dreamweaver
05-01-2009, 11:30 AM
She should have had it printed in a smaller font so I could spend longer reading her chest, er, slogan.

elirien
05-01-2009, 01:43 PM
yeah and perhaps lower. we are pigs. you know that right ? :D

dangermouse
05-01-2009, 01:52 PM
yeah and perhaps lower. we are pigs. you know that right ? :D

u mean so the I gets a dot on a cold day? :D

w1nstonsm1th84
05-01-2009, 02:40 PM
http://tcritic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/wikipedia.jpg

That's pretty funny. :D

Ian2day
05-01-2009, 06:38 PM
All but one of my wiki edits have been removed from it. In fact, they have even deleted, all records of the text I entered, from the history tabs of the varios articles. I must of been onto something for them to even remove it from the history tabs.

ownoiz
05-01-2009, 07:10 PM
Wikipedia is constantly edited by TPTB and governments, while other edits are removed...it has become a one sided propaganda tool.

Heres an example of what the Australian government are doing:

WikiScanner also identifies employees of another department, Defence, as the most prolific Wikipedia contributors in Australia.....

Defence computers were found to have made more than 5000 edits to Wikipedia entries, including to articles on the "9/11 Truth Movement", the Australian Defence Force Academy and even the Vietnam War-era Pentagon Papers.

Read the full article, Government edits Wikipedia (http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/pms-staff-edited-wikipedia/2007/08/23/1187462441687.html?page=fullpage).
.

lightgiver
05-01-2009, 08:51 PM
Cheers for the info,i personally try to source info from different sources and treble check any info i come across,and if it reasons with my common sense that usually confirms it,question everything,that's my motto:)

elirien
07-01-2009, 12:27 PM
u mean so the I gets a dot on a cold day? :D

lol definitely :D