Analogue and digital

  kaini said:

  tauboo said:

it's more enjoyable just thinking things like this are a joke rather than getting snooty and thinking it's an embarrassment

 

if you actively contribute to wiki, it's easier.

you examine the article in regards to three things - is it verifiable? is it notable? (both good) is there original research? (this is bad)

only if it can pass these does it deserve inclusion on wiki.

you sound like an unsophisticated robot

but you have flu, so i reckon that's why

no, it's because i can see the grand scale of wikipedia - the basic intent of the project, something that is independent and stands above the petty politics and bickering that accompanies so much of the policy and bureaucracy on wiki. the policy and bureaucracy suck, but they are a necessary evil that comes with operating a website of this size.

i genuinely believe wiki will be remembered in years to come as being one of the overshadowing developments not only in internets but in the 20th century. sure it has its problems, but people dismiss the fact that they go to wiki every day as far too casual a thing. a lot of people only see the end result, not the huge amount of effort that it takes just to keep common, retarded vandalism at bay.

it's certainly the biggest effort to get a huge amount of people online mobilised toward the same goal - accumulation and categorization of knowledge. and for that alone wikipedia deserves our admiration, regardless of how much of an ass jimbo wales is.

humour is an important part of society, so if wikipedia also provided some laughs, that's a good thing. it's like the difference between good graffiti that some people enjoy, and pointless name tagging.

well, it's kinda sad but there's no place for humour (bar some predictable retarded shit on april 1) on wiki

there used to be :(

there's also this

but i don't remember what came of it.