The Wiki-Truth.
 

The Wiki-Truth

Everyone knows how corrupt Wikipedia is, but now people have made a legitimate stand against them. Such is the purpose of Wiki-Truth.

Man, shut the fuck up faggot.

wOOt for no reason lolroflblarg.

Re: The Wiki-Truth.
 

Actually I don't. How is it corrupt?

Because wikipedia allows anyone to edit the writings. This means that you can never fully trust on Wikipedia. :/

Except that thousands of experts, teachers, scientists, material evaluators, the editors of Wikipedia themselves, and a healthy portion of critical thinkers visit nearly every article every day.

Fuck you guys against Wikipedia, it does my homework.

So, uh, a bunch of people are upset that a company that provides a free service allows anyone to use that free service. I see.

CORRUPTION.

You know what we call that? Communism.

And we can't have that, now can we?

And I don't care wheter or not it is free, it is a service that millions of people use all of the time and it's carelessly monitored. The vandalism that occurs because people take advantage of the system appalls me.
Anywho, it's just something I found very interesting.

WIKIPEDIA IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF DEMOCRACY AND I WON'T LET A NAZI LIKE YOU BESMERCH MY RIGHT TO SAY GARFIELD STABBED JULIUS CEASER IN THE BACK.

YOU ARE APPALLING

Also, there's tools that humans can use called common sense and checking your sources to make sure their wikipedia page is correct and just. Teachers rarely let kids use encyclopedias in general on reports if that's what you are bitching about. It's fucking free.

Did any of you happen to realize that this is a joke site?

Yeah, but it doesn't stop the fact that what is happening to the Wiki is real.

Do you have any examples?

I would find a few examples, but I will be gone over this weekend.
However, when I am back on the internet on Monday, I will scour the Wikipedia for evidence of dastardly deeds.

I challenge you to find any blatantly wrong information that doesn't have a "Neutrality-" or "Factuality-" "Disputed" disclaimer.

I would find a few examples, but I will be gone over this weekend.

WELL IF THEY ARE SO BLANTANTLY THERE YOU CAN FIND ONE IN SECONDS

YOU SUCK >:

I think every time people get pissed off about errors in Wikipedia it's over some kind of obscure article about the year two-ply toilet paper was invented and that this is evidence that all of Wikipedia is wrong and therefore every dirty liberal who uses it is wrong.

According to wikipedia, Dave Mustaine was the 34th president of Guatemala. Anyways, I think it's absurd to call wikipedia "corrupt". Obviously there are pranksters out there making up random shit on wiki, but to a certain degree, the folks at wiki should be able to step in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-Mockery :lol

I put BAPE there at the bottom just now under its list of moderators. :eek

Good. >:

But what about Jixby Phillips???

BAPE just got deleted. >:

I once read an article right after the presidential debates. Some person was very convinced that Bush was making a legitimate statement when talking about "rumors on the internets", citing that the rumors came from inter-collegiate networks (one internet) and spread onto the world-wide web (a totally different internet). So, rumors abounded on both internets.

Thank fucking God for those "contested neutrality" labels.

That needs to change. >: