Gaijin

skip to about 4:45

Weird Al's "White and Nerdy?"

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Wikipedia is correct, 99% of the time.
You have a few people going through and randomly changing stuff. And more people going through and changing it back.

QFT

If you change something it will be changed back in a month.
There are people who are super proud of their Wikipedia pages and moderate it all the time (And get told if someone changed it, then just Ctrl C/V the original text back).
Plus there a lot of people with the common sense to change something back if the is one moronic n00b that decided to be a fag.
And there a quite a few Semi-protected articles that prevent idiots who have only been using the website for less than a week from ruining it for all of us.
I don't understand why Wikipedia has such a bad rep, it work quite well and it is as Rasq said 99% correct, and if something is wrong it would be promptly corrected.

Anybody hear about the Canadian civil war article that was up for a while? It was so long, well written and detailed, that nobody realised it was all made up for weeks

Yes, but what if during the time you are searching for information, someone changed it, and it is wrong?

Thats why people say it is unreliable..

thane321 wrote:skip to about 4:45

haha, i like it! lol

Wrongipidia