Corporations!? in my Wikipedia!? UNPOSSIBLE!

[ArkaineX55]

http://www.maltastar.com/pages/msFullArt.asp?an=14323

One American student sent major corporations, governments and even the Vatican on the defensive after coming up with Wikipedia Scanner, a software program that reveals who changed Wikipedia entries. Wikipedia.com is an online encyclopedia edited by general users, who write articles on every imaginable subject. Since it is written by users, anyone can edit, delete and arrange the articles on Wikipedia. What Virgil Griffith did was come up with a program that reveals who edits these articles, via a system where it scans the I.P address and cross-references it with the I.P. directory.

As soon as the software was launched on the internet, chaos erupted.

I can see why this raises alot of concerns. However, Proxies can cover up alot more than people think.

It's still pretty awesome for what it is though.

[Guest echtrae]

I've been hearing about this for several days. I think it's brilliant.

[foeofthelance]

We're talking about wikipedia here. The only time it should ever be considered even remotely close to being a definitive source is when you're having a fan debate. Being shocked that there's people faking entries is like being shocked that some people put milk in their breakfast cereal. If one must use wikipedia as a research tool, the use it to find the sources that other people cite.

[madlodger]

FanFiction.Net has it's own article in Wiki. Adultfanfiction doesn't, but is mentioned in passing in the FanFiction.Net's article.

[foeofthelance]

Ok, now that I have to check out.

anyone think we should craft one?

[EveKnight75]

I think it's a good thing that Wikipedia will now track the IP addresses of anyone who chooses to edit an article without logging in. It won't always work as a course of action, but it's a step in the right direction.

I think we could write an article for AFF. The problem would be listing sources other than the site itself. Then again, maybe we don't need proof for our facts.

[Guest Big Samurai]

Props to Mr. Griffith for making a good utility. I'd certainly be interested in knowing if corporations or the government are sticking their dirty little fingers into the public knowledge pool.

[madlodger]

I'd certainly be interested in knowing if corporations or the government are sticking their dirty little fingers into the public knowledge pool.

Of course they do. And now we'll get to see how exactly they do it

I think we could write an article for AFF.

Really good idea. Unless AFF likes to keep low profile, which has it's merits as well. Would this cause an influx of members?

[ladydeathfaerie]

once upon a time, Madlodger, AFF was a small... and i mean small... community. then a magazine wrote up an article on the site and BAM!!! there was an explosion of writers and readers on the site.

so i suppose anything is possible.

[foeofthelance]

Not sure it would draw in new members, but it might give a place for us to reference to, as well as explaining a few things better than we do

[Guest Agaib]

The only reason anything should be added to Wikipedia is so that it furthers the purpose of open information. Thats what its all about. However, I'd definitely say that AFF is large enough to warrant an article.

I'm no good at making articles on wikipedia. I make changes now and then, but I'm no good with the formatting.

[foeofthelance]

We should probably start a different thread in plain Aimless Babble

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

We're talking about wikipedia here. The only time it should ever be considered even remotely close to being a definitive source is when you're having a fan debate. Being shocked that there's people faking entries is like being shocked that some people put milk in their breakfast cereal. If one must use wikipedia as a research tool, the use it to find the sources that other people cite.

Talk about it. I'm an Admin on a small Wiki that gathers info on the "Untitles J.J. Abrams Project" (1-18-08) and more then once I've had to clean up a mess someone else made because they didn't know what they were doing. Furthermore, I had a problem where people kept throwing in rumors and theories as facts, which was hella annoying.

Though, a lot of how Wikipedia runs is getting better. It's tagging and cleaning up a lot of articles, calling for source material, better organized articles, and the like. I trust a lot of Wikipedia. Given, I take it with a grain of salt, but it's generally reliable unless flagged as otherwise.

[madlodger]

We should probably start a different thread in plain Aimless Babble

Good thinking. I did go ahead and posted a poll there.