• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Feel guilty for not ever donating to wiki?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Captante said:
Did you actually read any of that drivel? 😕

Sadly I believe its intended to be serious however I'm not sure why you would say its petty or shallow to wish it were otherwise.
Click to expand...

Errr, it's my point that I was calling shallow and petty. I was relieved that it wasn't my flag in the corner even though, obviously, wilful ignorance isn't limited to the people flying that flag.
 
WelshBloke said:
If you know something later and greater it would be nice if you could share it.
Click to expand...

Not latest perhaps but, definitely greatest. They're called libraries. For some unfathomable reason, convenience has not only assumed the highest priority in everything from knowledge to food, it has become the only factor used to determine value. The perspective, enthusiastic support of the masses and, worst, acceptance of people who know better, all SUCK. It depresses the hell out of those of us who want to embrace the advantages of new technology instead of facing new and faster ways to waste time, energy and, resources.
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
Not latest perhaps but, definitely greatest. They're called libraries. For some unfathomable reason, convenience has not only assumed the highest priority in everything from knowledge to food, it has become the only factor used to determine value. The perspective, enthusiastic support of the masses and, worst, acceptance of people who know better, all SUCK. It depresses the hell out of those of us who want to embrace the advantages of new technology instead of facing new and faster ways to waste time, energy and, resources.
Click to expand...

Yea, I can see how a tiny curated, and sometimes censored collection of books can be better than all the books. No, wait, I actually can't...
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
Not latest perhaps but, definitely greatest. They're called libraries. For some unfathomable reason, convenience has not only assumed the highest priority in everything from knowledge to food, it has become the only factor used to determine value. The perspective, enthusiastic support of the masses and, worst, acceptance of people who know better, all SUCK. It depresses the hell out of those of us who want to embrace the advantages of new technology instead of facing new and faster ways to waste time, energy and, resources.
Click to expand...

OK. I'm assuming that from now on you'll be supporting all the points you make with references to journals and scans of said articles?
Captante said:
Gotcha ... misunderstood. 🙂
Click to expand...
My bad, I tend not to put enough effort into making my points.

Apparently I need to get them peer reviewed first. 😉
 
lxskllr said:
Yea, I can see how a tiny curated, and sometimes censored collection of books can be better than all the books. No, wait, I actually can't...
Click to expand...

That's just it and, the crux of my issue with wiki, it isn't "all the books." It isn't even a significant portion of "all the books" and, nowhere does it give any indication of it's limits.
 
WelshBloke said:
My bad, I tend not to put enough effort into making my points.

Apparently I need to get them peer reviewed first. 😉
Click to expand...

Done. You were peer reviewed, and corrections were issued. If you had published a book, we'd have to wait for the initial run to sell, then publish a revision later; maybe some time next year if people loved WelshBloke books. Of course, if it didn't sell well, everyone would just have to stick with the erroneous data, not to mention the people that paid $19.95, and have a book that's wrong forever :^D
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
That's just it and, the crux of my issue with wiki, it isn't "all the books." It isn't even a significant portion of "all the books" and, nowhere does it give any indication of it's limits.
Click to expand...
It isn't, and has never been, "all the books". Its an encyclopedia, and probably the best one available, that happens to be free, and readily available to most of the population.
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
That's just it and, the crux of my issue with wiki, it isn't "all the books." It isn't even a significant portion of "all the books" and, nowhere does it give any indication of it's limits.
Click to expand...

That's like saying people open Britannica and expect to find full novels by Stephen King inside. Wikipedia is an encylopedia. Period. They make no claims otherwise, and people of normal to slightly below normal intelligence don't expect anything else. You're conflating the full internet with one site, mixing/matching throughout the discussion. What are we talking about here?
 
I donate every year. I use Wikipedia all the time and it's a valuable tool, especially for educators like myself.
 
lxskllr said:
That's like saying people open Britannica and expect to find full novels by Stephen King inside. Wikipedia is an encylopedia. Period. They make no claims otherwise, and people of normal to slightly below normal intelligence don't expect anything else. You're conflating the full internet with one site, mixing/matching throughout the discussion. What are we talking about here?
Click to expand...

You are the one who made the comparison. I'm sorry you attention span is unable to encompass all the points I've made and, you're apparently unwilling to scroll up (remember what I said about convenience)? I had hopes that someone might be willing to discuss how the technology could be better used but, I'll let you fanbois enjoy your shiny new toys.
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
You are the one who made the comparison. I'm sorry you attention span is unable to encompass all the points I've made and, you're apparently unwilling to scroll up (remember what I said about convenience)? I had hopes that someone might be willing to discuss how the technology could be better used but, I'll let you fanbois enjoy your shiny new toys.
Click to expand...
Seriously dude?

MagnusTheBrewer said:
Books by their very nature are viewed as limited texts. You pick them up and hold them in your hands in their entirety. The internet on the other hand "appears" to be limitless when it most definitely is not. You also seem to think "facts" exists independently of their context which is naive at best. I agree that there are many positive things about putting knowledge online. However, my somewhat cynical viewpoint honed by decades of interaction with poorly educated 'youts' makes me wary of technology that exacerbates the problem at the speed of light.
Click to expand...
I know exactly what I've posted in this thread. Convenience is an extremely high priority when disseminating knowledge; one of the highest in fact. If you have to trek to Tibet, and give gifts to some old fucker on top of a mountain, it doesn't much matter how much knowledge is in his head. Most people don't have the resources to do that.

You talk in circles, and make no substantive claims; same as the religion threads...
 
No, wiki is pretty useless.

Its the way they cite references, they must be free references from the internet, open source and all that. In 2014 the good information is increasingly behind pay-walls and the quality of information on wiki has fallen in lock-step.

I find stuff like the actual journals (ie nature.com, science direct etc.) and oddly enough TED talks (if you know who you are looking for) as infinitely better sources of good information. I'd rather cite quotes out of a TED video than some university of shanghai paper translated into broken English linked at the bottom of a wiki.
 
Last edited:
OverVolt said:
No, wiki is pretty useless.

Its the way they cite references, they must be free references from the internet, open source and all that.

...
Click to expand...

it's not ideal for detailed and in depth information, but it's still good for quickly getting a handle on something, e.g. the general function of a product (without having to wade through all the marketing BS on the official site), or the approximate population of some random city.

i try to donate a bit every year but not this year. it's kind of on my todo list.
 
Last edited:
It's a wonderful site with endless information compiled much better than your random web site. I give them $3 which 99% of people won't notice missing from their account. I'd drop $100 in a heartbeat if they were in danger of shutting down.
 
Howard said:
I see that you are going to continue posting complaints about Wikipedia until someone takes the bait.
Click to expand...

Im going to correct the wiki entry for Putin to portray him for the mad dictator of Moscow that he is, bent on rebuilding the USSR. Oh wait, I cant. Its full of lies.
 
Ah man I didn't realize Wiki donations takes Paypal. And no wiki registration is required. Paypal is easy to me, it's just 2 lines to fill out and a couple clicks or so compared to a lot more lines of info for credit cards. So I donated $50 a few minutes ago. One less guilty person I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top