posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
