| Revision as of 22:46, 5 July 2006 editAdvocron (talk | contribs)58 edits Buckle up.← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:54, 6 July 2006 edit undoSky-surfer (talk | contribs)239 editsm Categories: paradox or inconsistency?Next edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| == The sum of all human knowledge? == | == The sum of all human knowledge? == | ||
| Ever try to learn wine tasting from a computer? How about gymnastics? Let's assume Jimbo meant the tiny fraction of human knowledge which can be represented on a computer. You're going to accomplish this herculean feat with a system that discourages experts and rewards TV appearances? Buckle up, we're about to re-enter the atmosphere. New pages are added to Misplaced Pages somewhere in the neighborhood of once every thirty seconds. The limited number of so-called "editors" are currently overrun. They can't weed out all of the irrelevant articles. The rate at which new articles appear is growing faster than the rate at which new editors appear. What are they going to do when a new article is added every second? Ten per second? Misplaced Pages is destined to become a gargantuan repository of incomplete, inaccurate, irrelevant, and '''totally useless''' information. The actual useful bits of information are going to be like needles in a haystack. Eventually Misplaced Pages will resemble a putrified version of usenet. Then it will implode under the weight of its own "dark matter." I don't think there's any dispute about this among those in the know. The only question is when. -] 22:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | Ever try to learn wine tasting from a computer? How about gymnastics? Let's assume Jimbo meant the tiny fraction of human knowledge which can be represented on a computer. You're going to accomplish this herculean feat with a system that discourages experts and rewards TV appearances? Buckle up, we're about to re-enter the atmosphere. New pages are added to Misplaced Pages somewhere in the neighborhood of once every thirty seconds. The limited number of so-called "editors" are currently overrun. They can't weed out all of the irrelevant articles. The rate at which new articles appear is growing faster than the rate at which new editors appear. What are they going to do when a new article is added every second? Ten per second? Misplaced Pages is destined to become a gargantuan repository of incomplete, inaccurate, irrelevant, and '''totally useless''' information. The actual useful bits of information are going to be like needles in a haystack. Eventually Misplaced Pages will resemble a putrified version of usenet. Then it will implode under the weight of its own "dark matter." I don't think there's any dispute about this among those in the know. The only question is when. -] 22:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Categories: paradox or inconsistency? == | |||
| In many cases, Misplaced Pages '''categorizes''' information on a consensus basis that is not supported by any reputable source and reference; this big issue is often overlooked, becouse most of editors are busy with filling articles that have been "pigeonholed" in some templates, but none really check if that template is supported by academic and/or reputable sources. | |||
| :One remarkable example, that is imho even somewhat dangerous, is the whole set of articles/templates regarding non-academic and popular music: 99 % of those articles should be deleted, and/or merged, they are just original research based upon music fanzines, word of mouth, and temporary fads. Yours sincerely ''--] 06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
Revision as of 06:54, 6 July 2006
If you need to contact Jimbo about something, please do so at User_talk:Jimbo Wales, not here. As Jimbo himself explains...
People who are trying to leave messages for me will likely be more satisfied if they leave messages on my user talk page than if they leave them here. This is the talk page for the article about me, not a place to talk to me. I rarely read this. --Jimbo Wales 06:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
 | Jimmy Wales received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | Spoken Misplaced Pages | |||
| ||||
Template:Bounty notice Template:Bounty notice
 | Jimmy Wales has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. |
 Archives | |
|---|---|
An important question...
Why does the article not even bother to mention Jimbo's birth date?--Conrad Devonshire 06:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Because there is no good source for it, see discussion above. -- Kim van der Linde 08:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Look up three entries. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
doesn't look good to me
The page seems all screwed up to me - it starts with a description of "infobox celebrity" with a couple of examples following and the actual text is only a screen or two below. Must be some trivial markup mistake but I wasn't going to try to fix it myself - perhaps there's somebody more competent --Dzordzm 06:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK now it's good. Somebody's been playing with it :) --Dzordzm 06:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Archive by copy and paste
Is there some policy on archiving - as it makes more sense to me to move the talk page rather than copy and paste the text since the history then goes with the archive page. --Trödel 03:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- According to the official policy page, you can do either, as long as you follow the same procedure each time on the same page. --Robdurbar 08:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The sum of all human knowledge?
Ever try to learn wine tasting from a computer? How about gymnastics? Let's assume Jimbo meant the tiny fraction of human knowledge which can be represented on a computer. You're going to accomplish this herculean feat with a system that discourages experts and rewards TV appearances? Buckle up, we're about to re-enter the atmosphere. New pages are added to Misplaced Pages somewhere in the neighborhood of once every thirty seconds. The limited number of so-called "editors" are currently overrun. They can't weed out all of the irrelevant articles. The rate at which new articles appear is growing faster than the rate at which new editors appear. What are they going to do when a new article is added every second? Ten per second? Misplaced Pages is destined to become a gargantuan repository of incomplete, inaccurate, irrelevant, and totally useless information. The actual useful bits of information are going to be like needles in a haystack. Eventually Misplaced Pages will resemble a putrified version of usenet. Then it will implode under the weight of its own "dark matter." I don't think there's any dispute about this among those in the know. The only question is when. -Advocron 22:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Categories: paradox or inconsistency?
In many cases, Misplaced Pages categorizes information on a consensus basis that is not supported by any reputable source and reference; this big issue is often overlooked, becouse most of editors are busy with filling articles that have been "pigeonholed" in some templates, but none really check if that template is supported by academic and/or reputable sources.
- One remarkable example, that is imho even somewhat dangerous, is the whole set of articles/templates regarding non-academic and popular music: 99 % of those articles should be deleted, and/or merged, they are just original research based upon music fanzines, word of mouth, and temporary fads. Yours sincerely --''skysurfer'' 06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)