The Wikipedia Effect

The Wikipedia Effect (from urbandictionary)

def: Wikipedia Effect is the tendancy for inquisitive people to become

caught in an endless series of pages on the popular open-encyclopedia,

"Wikipedia", to which they are forced to read every single page they've opened.

Motherfucks, I'm so tired of being caught in that. It's fun yeah, but you don't you feel fucking ashamed of yourself when you find yourself with 14 Wikipedia Tabs just awaiting you to read them, probably opening 10 others, bookmarking 10 others since you don't have time to read them all.

I mean, FFS, just look at this moment :

Red_Book_of_Westmarch

High_School_High

Story_within_a_story

Bob_Vila

Cold_opening

Professional_foul

Hard_Drivin'

Equation_of_motion

Yoyodyne

ARGHHHHHHHHHHH

I don't even have time to wank anymore ZELAHLOL

Just recognize that not everything you read on there is necessarily true.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage

suffice to say you are so fucked if you click that link

my roommate used to do this all the time on acid or E

I'd wake up to piss at 4 in the morning and he'd be like "dude did you know there's a college in the Mall of America?"

I find everything2 is an excellent source of time-wasting.

And Encyclopedia Dramatica is much more entertatining than wikipedia. but can be very NSFW so click at own risk.

Surprisingly, NSFW also means not safe for school commons.

  On 4/14/2010 at 5:54 AM, doorjamb said:

my roommate used to do this all the time on acid or E

 

I'd wake up to piss at 4 in the morning and he'd be like "dude did you know there's a college in the Mall of America?"

irl lol

  On 4/14/2010 at 3:20 AM, kaini said:

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage

suffice to say you are so fucked if you click that link

wow this is really fucking addictive

  On 4/14/2010 at 9:35 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

dramatica is just too angry for my liking. I understand that's the point and I do enjoy it sometimes but generally every article is like " is a piece of shit liked by overweight faggots who live in their mum's basement"

I can see that. Check out their portal on Wikipedia for some real nerd rage.

  On 4/14/2010 at 10:13 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 4/14/2010 at 9:35 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

dramatica is just too angry for my liking. I understand that's the point and I do enjoy it sometimes but generally every article is like "<x> is a piece of shit liked by overweight faggots who live in their mum's basement"

 

 

I can see that. Check out their portal on Wikipedia for some real nerd rage.

Its kind of interesting when you want to know where a certain meme comes from and where it all went but there is up to 0 quality control (of course not) so many pages are just like you said

  On 4/14/2010 at 3:19 AM, chenGOD said:

Just recognize that not everything you read on there is necessarily true.

That makes it worse for me, I follow a bunch of Wikipedia links and then I feel the need to verify it with other sources

TV Tropes seems like it is trying to be addictive, the way they ceaselessly use their own obscure terms without explanation means you can hardly read an article without needing to look up some of the words in it

  On 4/14/2010 at 12:32 PM, Coalbucket PI said:

  On 4/14/2010 at 3:19 AM, chenGOD said:

Just recognize that not everything you read on there is necessarily true.

That makes it worse for me, I follow a bunch of Wikipedia links and then I feel the need to verify it with other sources

Yeah, that and the talk/discussion pages where people are arguing about the claims, POV of the article, etc.. makes for countless hours of edutainment!

Really though I kind of prefer wiki as at least it has those resources out in the open. There's accountability built into it.. by comparison when's the last time you saw a page in the Brittanica flagged for inaccuracy.. most people just take it as gospel when it isn't necessarily more accurate at all

what a boring list

thanks to you people i've been reading LOTR lore for like 3 hours

where do i click?? i want to get addicted! it's a free drug right?

  On 4/14/2010 at 3:10 AM, Philip Glass said:

big image and link to tvtropes

Yeah tvtropes is the end boss of these things.

  Quote

TV Tropes seems like it is trying to be addictive, the way they ceaselessly use their own obscure terms without explanation means you can hardly read an article without needing to look up some of the words in it

I find that part of the fun.

  On 4/14/2010 at 3:28 PM, TwiddleBot said:

  On 4/14/2010 at 12:32 PM, Coalbucket PI said:

  On 4/14/2010 at 3:19 AM, chenGOD said:

Just recognize that not everything you read on there is necessarily true.

That makes it worse for me, I follow a bunch of Wikipedia links and then I feel the need to verify it with other sources

 

Yeah, that and the talk/discussion pages where people are arguing about the claims, POV of the article, etc.. makes for countless hours of edutainment!

 

Really though I kind of prefer wiki as at least it has those resources out in the open. There's accountability built into it.. by comparison when's the last time you saw a page in the Brittanica flagged for inaccuracy.. most people just take it as gospel when it isn't necessarily more accurate at all

the thing with wikipedia though is that it's deliberately trolled, and most of the contributors are not experts.It's great reading stories about world renowned experts not being allowed to contribute their own edits because it's original research.

  On 4/14/2010 at 5:17 PM, Super lurker ultra V12 said:

what a boring list

It was just the start.

p.s.: STFU

  On 4/14/2010 at 8:46 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 4/14/2010 at 3:28 PM, TwiddleBot said:

  On 4/14/2010 at 12:32 PM, Coalbucket PI said:

  On 4/14/2010 at 3:19 AM, chenGOD said:

Just recognize that not everything you read on there is necessarily true.

That makes it worse for me, I follow a bunch of Wikipedia links and then I feel the need to verify it with other sources

 

Yeah, that and the talk/discussion pages where people are arguing about the claims, POV of the article, etc.. makes for countless hours of edutainment!

 

Really though I kind of prefer wiki as at least it has those resources out in the open. There's accountability built into it.. by comparison when's the last time you saw a page in the Brittanica flagged for inaccuracy.. most people just take it as gospel when it isn't necessarily more accurate at all

 

the thing with wikipedia though is that it's deliberately trolled, and most of the contributors are not experts.It's great reading stories about world renowned experts not being allowed to contribute their own edits because it's original research.

truth. and on the other side of the coin you have people like sasha grey who totally game the system to increase their own exposure.

yeah or politicians who try to remove criticism from their articles, that kind of stuff. it's hilarious when they get caught, too.

but that's why the talk pages are so nice.

as for research articles i think that rule is completely 100% fair. you should only be able to use research that has been published in peer-reviewed journals, otherwise you'd be wading through articles published by every joe who decided he figured out the mysteries of the universe on his first trip. featuring such wonders as 'joe's theory of free spiral oblivion orgone energy'.. because like spirals, they're everywhere in like nature, man.

I have so many bookmarked wikipedia pages I've never gotten around to reading.

  On 4/14/2010 at 9:50 PM, TwiddleBot said:

yeah or politicians who try to remove criticism from their articles, that kind of stuff. it's hilarious when they get caught, too.

 

but that's why the talk pages are so nice.

 

as for research articles i think that rule is completely 100% fair. you should only be able to use research that has been published in peer-reviewed journals, otherwise you'd be wading through articles published by every joe who decided he figured out the mysteries of the universe on his first trip. featuring such wonders as 'joe's theory of free spiral oblivion orgone energy'.. because like spirals, they're everywhere in like nature, man.

 

So let's say Einstein wants to post on the Quantum Physics page. Who does he cite?

Einstein never got on properly with Quantum Physics, so he'd probably just be editing to call Niels Bohr a cunt or sommat.

i dunno, i thought he got on relatively well with quantum physics.

i do this with IMDB all the time