Comments on: People you believe

By: Team_Victoria

Team_Victoria — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:45:00 +0000

But it’s so FUN!

By: Team_Victoria

Team_Victoria — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:43:51 +0000

I f*****g love trolling wikipedia :]

By: l. drake

l. drake — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:04:24 +0000

meh

By: l. drake

l. drake — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:00:38 +0000

Or, the Mayans who ran out of rocks whenst putting together their calendar.

By: OhNoes

OhNoes — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 20:40:52 +0000

the s in generalisations is correct in Europe, which you’d know if you didn’t have your head up your ass. British English: the better English.

By: ErmineStoat

ErmineStoat — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:24:18 +0000

The “s” instead of a “z” is what parksj1 meant. You almost made a good comeback. Nice try though.

By: Me

Me — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:55:47 +0000

Here’s the wikipedia definition of wikipedia
Wikipedia (pronounced /ˌwiːkiˈpiːdi.ə/, WEE-kee-PEE-dee-ə or /ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdi.ə/, WI-ki-PEE-dee-ə) is a free,[5] web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning “quick”) and encyclopedia. Wikipedia’s 13 million articles (three million in the English Wikipedia) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site.[6] Launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger,[7] it is currently the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet.[3][8][9][10]

Critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies (including undue weight given to popular culture),[11] and allege that it favors consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[12] Its reliability and accuracy are also claimed to be an issue.[13] Other criticisms center on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information,[14] though scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived,[15][16] and an investigation in Nature found that the material they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of “serious errors”.[17] These claims have been disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica;[18] Nature in turn published a rebuttal to Britannica’s objections.[19]

Wikipedia’s departure from the expert-driven style of the encyclopedia building mode and the large presence of unacademic contents have been noted several times. When Time magazine recognized You as its Person of the Year for 2006, acknowledging the accelerating success of online collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, it cited Wikipedia as one of several examples of Web 2.0 services, along with YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook.[20] Some noted the importance of Wikipedia not only as an encyclopedic reference but also as a frequently updated news resource because of how quickly articles about recent events appear.[21][22]

By: Lianaloo

Lianaloo — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 01:12:02 +0000

your right Wikepedia is not a person Wikepedia is god

By: Lianaloo

Lianaloo — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 01:09:52 +0000

i am a strong wikipedia beliver

By: Lianaloo

Lianaloo — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 01:07:55 +0000

hey americans may be stupid and fat and pollute the air but we are definetly not brainless are brains are like ummm the size of a walnut and are as smooth as babies skin no ridges in our brains

By: christina

christina — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:06:14 +0000

shouldn’t the graph be titled “things you believe” wikipedia is not a person lol. nice graph btw

By: Krafen

Krafen — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:25:55 +0000

What is your source for those numbers?

By: StCyr

StCyr — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:15:54 +0000

Your point would be more valid if the graph maker had referred to Wikipedia/book/website writers as people.

By: GN

GN — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:19:36 +0000

He actually spelled it correctly as well. Had you spent less time trying to be a jackass, you probably would’ve picked up on it as well. Nice try though.

By: charro

charro — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:02:41 +0000

Epic fallacy FTW!

By: Amilie

Amilie — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 02:04:11 +0000

Oh ye who hath not faith in humanity… the “wikipedia” and “professionals” slices really should be switched. Sure it wouldn’t be funny, but it would be true.

By: sup

sup — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:01:41 +0000

*facedesk*
Wow, really?

By: Axel

Axel — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:47:58 +0000

Well, that is only true if it agrees with you. if you prove someone wrong, they say that a raving lunatic must have edited it.

By: parksj1

parksj1 — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:13:55 +0000

It was a sweeping generalization (note how I spelled that) made by an American about Americans. Nice try though.

By: merm

merm — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:27:52 +0000

oh snap!

By: thejadefalcon

thejadefalcon — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:16:59 +0000

And it is. As a Wikipedia editor myself, I get angry when some moron comes along and adds random stuff in without any proof. I’ve completely rewritten two articles to make them far better than they were. Now, two articles out of almost three million isn’t much at all. But consider that Wikipedia has nine million registered users. Not all of them are active, but if as many that are active try to make the site as best as they can, the site will move from strength to strength. The fact that anyone can edit is most Wikipedia’s greatest weakness and its greatest strength. Nowhere else in the world is there an encyclopaedia that encompasses so much and, while some things might not be that great, Wikipedians are always trying to make it better. Compare to a printed encyclopaedia: once it’s printed, that’s it. Even if the information is wrong, it can’t be changed. Wikipedia can and often rapidly is. I dare you to find a site that has anywhere near the amount of useful and accurate information that Wikipedia has.

By: buttercup

buttercup — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:44:56 +0000

thank you I thought the same thing and did this face O_o when I saw that

By: buttercup

buttercup — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:44:32 +0000

Wikipedia isn't a person. It should say things you believe. [source needed]

By: James

James — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:31:07 +0000

The amount of “common knowledge” out there is the reason why Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources. Anything without an accompanying source can be challenged or even removed without question.

By: Charlton Heston

Charlton Heston — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:19:21 +0000

It’s people. Wikipedia is made out of people! They’re making our misinformation and half truths out of people! Next thing they’ll be breeding us like idiots for inaccuracies. You’ve gotta tell them. You’ve gotta tell them!

By: forge

forge — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:52:51 +0000

Forgot “idiots on Fox News” and “idiots with misspelled signs outside town hall meetings” and “idiots who stand up in town hall meetings and scream BIRTH CERTIFICATE SOCIALISM DEATH PANEL COMMUNIST AAAAAAGGGGHH” which would make up 99.9% of the circle.

By: aaron m

aaron m — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:56:58 +0000

I never knew Wikipedia was a person!

By: zluz

zluz — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:32:29 +0000

hahahaha. Sort of like Webster of dictionary fame.

By: Marekatt

Marekatt — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:31:14 +0000

These are the only “people” the creator believes in ^^ Poor guy. I don’t tend to trust professionals tho’, because they are usually VERY biased, even more so that wikipedia. I’ve tried to watch some American documentaries lately and I find them highly biased either for the left or the right (and crappy in quality overall. All they have is silly easytocomprehend language and visual effects).

By: Critic

Critic — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:50:49 +0000

Wrong graph type. I don’t believe 10% of professionals, and 66% of Wikipedia. lrn2graphjam

By: Yank

Yank — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:40:50 +0000

Not like those educated Europeans who make sweeping generalisations about entire countries of people. jackass.

By: Hermes

Hermes — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:21:17 +0000

That is why I joined the Brain Slug Party.

By: merm

merm — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:39:54 +0000

Aren’t pie charts supposed to represent percentage? A bar graph would better suit this idea. Plus, this is a joke that’s been done way too many times.
How do these graphs keep getting posted?

By: :P

:P — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:38:12 +0000

haha vicious albiet somewhat true. The American media is awful, but I believe that at least some of the American public have yet to be brainwashed.

By: zappafrank

zappafrank — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:28:16 +0000

I’m intersted in all kinds of stuff.

By: LeAnna

LeAnna — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:36:29 +0000

I agree with the graph. Although Wikipedia is not a person, I tend to look towards it for general information.

By: Casa

Casa — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:27:22 +0000

Umm… if you actualy follow up with the citations and such you’ll find a good amount of it is accurate. It’s like any other informatios source: use more than one.

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:59:49 +0000

Books, websites and Wikipedia need to be written by people.

By: george

george — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:59:34 +0000

WIKIPEDIA IS PEOPLE TOO!

By: parksj1

parksj1 — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:07:39 +0000

Are we talking about Americans? If so, the correct answer is brainless pundits on biased news media outlets (right and left).

By: WikiMan

WikiMan — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:04:40 +0000

Maybe a Wikipedia reference would help! __ Interested in a GifAway?

By: Starlinguk

Starlinguk — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:58:42 +0000

“The Daily Mail headlines ” is missing.

By: Frank Wikipedia

Frank Wikipedia — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:53:35 +0000

Oh ye of little faith.

By: Homer

Homer — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:50:50 +0000

You’re wrong.

Most of the information on Wikipedia is correct. Unfortunately, any percentage above 50% counts as “most”. Even if it is 96% accurate, that is not good enough for supposed reference material.

By: Homer

Homer — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:48:44 +0000

I am glad that you realize the best thing is that simple grammar mistakes get corrected. With most reference web sites, people would generally claim the best thing about the site is the accurate, useful information.

By: Ilove2learn

Ilove2learn — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:25:26 +0000

You’d be surprised how many people believe that most of Wikipedia is garbage. It can be oppinionated at times. That’s the main problem I have with it. Other than that, I don’t think there’s much to disagree with. Correct me if I’m wrong.

By: what the hell

what the hell — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:17:40 +0000

The problem with wikipedia is that much of it is based on “common knowledge” which is really just common misconception. The mistakes aren’t limited to simple grammar or misspellings. There are entries that have large amounts of erroneous information that people widely believe to be true, but that is in fact false.

By: BoringTroll

BoringTroll — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:04:57 +0000

I’d point out some mistakes I’ve found on wikipedia, but they’re all fixed now. I fixed a few of them myself. Sometimes I only knew that something was wrong, but not how to fix it. In those cases, I just comment on the talk pages.

The best part about wikipedia, is if you misspell something or use the wrong “their” there, the mistakes get fixed almost immediately.

By: mygabers

mygabers — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:00:54 +0000

There should be a slice for random e-mails sent by unknown persons. Those are always true.

By: what the hell

what the hell — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:00:14 +0000

The person who created and submitted the graph is clearly a moron, but why did so many people vote for it? Are there that many people who mistakingly think that wikipedia is an accurate source (not person) for information??