But This is why I both love and hate Wikipedia.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
*snarf*
-Trevor
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
Admit it. That's funny.
[ April 20, 2005, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: urbanX ]
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I want to be outraged, but I'm laughing too hard.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't have any problem with the joke. It's mildly amusing - they do look a lot alike. I'm more offended on behalf of Wikipedia.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*grin* And twinky was afraid it wasn't a real encyclopedia. Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Of course, left out of that post is the fact that the page in question was dredged up from its history, and that the vandalism is being dealt with promptly...
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Aw, see now I can't make my snide comment.
[ April 20, 2005, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I was like, where's the joke? And woh does the pope look like Emperor Palpatine. Oh wait. Ha ha.
(I didn't read the thread title well)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I showed a friend of mine who isn't very Star Wars savvy and she said "Okay, I'm looking at it, and?"
"Did you look at the picture?"
"Yeah, and?"
"And?"
"Wait...that's not his picture is it?"
Then she clicked on the picture, and the caption says Palpatine.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Now they just need to do that for Bush! Wait... anyone can edit those entries...
*LIGHTBULB*
Ok, I'm very seriously tempted to do this. Someone talk me out of it.
[ April 21, 2005, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
It doesn't take that long for people to fix it. The pope's picture is already fixed...your link is an older version of the article
[ April 21, 2005, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:*grin* And twinky was afraid it wasn't a real encyclopedia.
Case rested.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Thank god I'm not the only one who immediately saw the similarity between them. Posted by Peter (Member # 4373) on :
That's great
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I did not get it at all.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Liz - instead of Pope Ratzinberger, they had a picture of Chancellor Palpatine.
-Trevor
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
It is a realistic pict.
Maybe he have a secret white army... But where is Vador ?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Does this mean the Pope wants to be the Emperor?
Posted by Bill Door (Member # 7854) on :
Or maybe the emperor wants to be pope...
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Considering I think the pic lasted up there all of a few seconds (what is linked to is the prior version where the pic existed), this is, if anything, a good example of how resilient wikipedia is.
If the next edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica comes out with a picture of Senator Palpatine next to the column about Benedict XVI, or even if Britannica online ever posts such a picture next to the column, I will eat my hard hat.
Edit: Also, the suggestion that Britannica's errors are "less obvious" is spurious. What makes wikipedia immune to similarly obscure errors?
[ April 21, 2005, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
AFAIKT, that picture was put up in one minute, and the very next minute it was removed.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
My point is that if entries and edits were vetted a priori, it would never have been posted.
Edit: What does the "K" stand for in "AFAIKT?"
[ April 21, 2005, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
IIRK, it stands for "can."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's what I thought. Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
I told my wife when I first saw him that he did resemble the emperor a bit. Someone must have noticed a resemblance too. I think it is mildly amusing.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Welcome to Hatrack! Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Korrekct
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
twinky, you're stuck in a remarkably old-media view of data. If someone had to approve everything posted to wikipedia, it couldn't be a free -- and enormous, and mostly accurate -- encyclopedia.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:twinky, you're stuck in a remarkably old-media view of data.
I don't see this as a problem, though. It isn't a matter of being "stuck" when you're "stuck" on purpose. It's interesting that you see it as a negative thing.
quote:If someone had to approve everything posted to wikipedia, it couldn't be a free -- and enormous, and mostly accurate -- encyclopedia.
That's right, it couldn't. And that'd be fine by me. "Mostly accurate" when there's no accountability -- and, indeed, no guarantee of even approximate accuracy if you read their disclaimer -- isn't good enough for me. So I don't use it.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
But why are you proselyting against it?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Huh? How is posting a thread that says "wikipedia bothers me for these reasons, does anyone else feel the same way?" at all evangelical?
I wouldn't have posted to this thread at all if Tom hadn't mentioned me by name.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
OK. Backing off now.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As has been pointed out before, none of the other encyclopedia's make any guarantee of accuracy, and in fact all expressly deny such a guarantee.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If by "as has been pointed out before" you mean "I linked to one instance," then you're generalizing an awful lot from one example. Not to mention that your own link supports my point about accountability.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It couldn't have been removed from Wikipedia that fast. A friend told me about it and I didn't check it out until hours later, and the search still took me to the pic of Palpatine. Perhaps it was just a glitch?
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
That's an older revision of the page. From the timestamps, The joke picture was baleeted in a minute or less. Wikipedia lets you see older versions of the pages, to help track what was changed.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Attention: This article is in a state of constant fluctuation. Due to the high frequency of edits at this time, the content of this article may change rapidly, and may temporarily contain inaccuracies, POV, and vandalism.
[ April 21, 2005, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
As somebody who's actually done research and factchecking for a mainstream reference work -- not to mention somebody who's experienced the unique joy that comes of finding an error in a published dictionary -- I find twinky's faith in the superiority of a slower, more exclusive editorial process to be charming. Not terribly well-founded, but charming.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)