Wikipedia

Evo7 said:
:lmao:

Can I have his autograph now he's famous.

Well actually he is kind of famous online and has had lots of articles written on him in the last months. He is a programmer and wrote a program years ago called Windows Defender that was an anti-pop up tool.

About 2 months ago he got a letter from Microsoft's lawyer's informing him that he was in breach of copyright by using the term "Windows" and would he kindly mind not supporting the program any more, removing it from his website and signing over the name "Window's Defender". They said that this was a routine activity that they did finding people who used the term Windows and getting them to remove it.

As they were technically correct about his use of their copyrighted material, and not stupid enough to try and take on Microsoft, and the had written the program years ago when we were in high school and no longer supported it in any way, he signed the forms and returned it to them.

He was then very surprised when 2 weeks later Microsoft revealed that Windows Vista would have anti-spyware programs built into it....called Windows Defender.

Lots of papers and news agencies wrote articles and did stories on how Microsoft was ripping off independent programmers....again, and how they hadn't been honest with what they wanted to use the name for.

The best part, and to add insult to injury, is that a couple of weeks later Microsoft sent him a Windows Vista t-shirt. Gee....thanks! :lol:

They better at least send him a free copy of Vista when it is released!
 
What a bunch of :censored:

At least the press realised what was happening, when you've got support from the media that tends to get something done about it. There is quite a few independant programmers who come up with better ideas than Microsoft ever could.
 
there is this school near my house called International Academy, they were ranked #1 or #2 in the nation by some bogus standards but they are well known none the less. anyway me and friend, who goes to the school, went on their wikipedia article and changed all of it to say that it was formed by a colony of hermaphroditic chimps.
the principle actually contacted wikipedia and complained to them so now you cant permanently change it anymore. are there any others like this?
 
bartboy9891 said:
anyway me and friend, who goes to the school, went on their wikipedia article and changed all of it to say that it was formed by a colony of hermaphroditic chimps.
:lol: :lol:
LoL, Wiki can be sooo much fun ;)
 
KryptonZone is right. Wikipedia was recently rated better than britannica and a few others. I find that it is rarely innacurate, and false entries are removed with amazing swiftness. They must have a lot of staff watching the updates like hawkes.

Edit: And it's the idiots that muck it up who ruin it for everyone else. Grow up.
 
Marty_ said:
They must have a lot of staff watching the updates like hawkes.

And the general public - I've read things on there I know to be innacurate that I have either changed or deleted
 
vladmitu said:
wikipedia is not a reliable source at all ... the whole world can edit every single thing on Wikipedia ...

So it's bad because it's open to the public is what you're saying? And it's not really useful because anyone can put random facts on it?...you have a good point.

Ya know there was somthing else I heard about that was like that, but everyone still concidered it a great resource....Oh Yeah! The Internet.
 
ClarksonKatrinaCommentary.jpg


On Jeremy's Wiki Page...
 
No Boss said:
Ya know there was somthing else I heard about that was like that, but everyone still concidered it a great resource....Oh Yeah! The Internet.

i actually would trust wiki more than some random web page written by a random dude who only half know what he talks about. on wiki his entry would get edited so it's true, a webpage gets uploaded and that's it, you buy it or you don't without any guarantee of truth[/url]
 
bone said:
No Boss said:
Ya know there was somthing else I heard about that was like that, but everyone still concidered it a great resource....Oh Yeah! The Internet.

i actually would trust wiki more than some random web page written by a random dude who only half know what he talks about. on wiki his entry would get edited so it's true, a webpage gets uploaded and that's it, you buy it or you don't without any guarantee of truth[/url]

Same, but I don't have 100% trust in Wikipedia anyway. I use it for a bit of a reference if I need to research something, but just so that I know what to look for elsewhere.

Wiki is a great thing, but having a bit of common sense when using it is not a bad thing.
 
bartboy9891 said:
there is this school near my house called International Academy, they were ranked #1 or #2 in the nation by some bogus standards but they are well known none the less. anyway me and friend, who goes to the school, went on their wikipedia article and changed all of it to say that it was formed by a colony of hermaphroditic chimps.
the principle actually contacted wikipedia and complained to them so now you cant permanently change it anymore. are there any others like this?

Is this the page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Academy

You, me or anyone else can edit that article. For a period of time, it may have been protected so that it wasn't editable, but AFAIK, no article is permanently protected from any editing.
 
Hazardous said:
bone said:
No Boss said:
Ya know there was somthing else I heard about that was like that, but everyone still concidered it a great resource....Oh Yeah! The Internet.

i actually would trust wiki more than some random web page written by a random dude who only half know what he talks about. on wiki his entry would get edited so it's true, a webpage gets uploaded and that's it, you buy it or you don't without any guarantee of truth[/url]

Same, but I don't have 100% trust in Wikipedia anyway. I use it for a bit of a reference if I need to research something, but just so that I know what to look for elsewhere.

Wiki is a great thing, but having a bit of common sense when using it is not a bad thing.

All I know is it got me a number of A's on papers this past year. So factual or not, it works.
 
No Boss said:
Hazardous said:
bone said:
No Boss said:
Ya know there was somthing else I heard about that was like that, but everyone still concidered it a great resource....Oh Yeah! The Internet.

i actually would trust wiki more than some random web page written by a random dude who only half know what he talks about. on wiki his entry would get edited so it's true, a webpage gets uploaded and that's it, you buy it or you don't without any guarantee of truth[/url]

Same, but I don't have 100% trust in Wikipedia anyway. I use it for a bit of a reference if I need to research something, but just so that I know what to look for elsewhere.

Wiki is a great thing, but having a bit of common sense when using it is not a bad thing.

All I know is it got me a number of A's on papers this past year. So factual or not, it works.

I am pretty sure your teachers dont know those system's which search the web for these sort of things... I think they call themself Web-based plagiarism prevention systems, but those systems are actually stupid. They look for similarities in your text, some are better organised than others. We proved a teacher that they dont work, so he stopped using them. :D
 
No Boss said:
vladmitu said:
wikipedia is not a reliable source at all ... the whole world can edit every single thing on Wikipedia ...

So it's bad because it's open to the public is what you're saying? And it's not really useful because anyone can put random facts on it?...you have a good point.

Ya know there was somthing else I heard about that was like that, but everyone still concidered it a great resource....Oh Yeah! The Internet.
Not much is realiable for references in this world, really. Not even written press, but there still are certain places on the internet that you can trust, such as company websites, newspaper websites, university websites and others, which I can say, they really can't give you misleading information. Of course, when I want to learn about something, I won't be doing that from "Joe Schmo's Page on Organical Chemistry, if you know what I mean. :)
 
yeah, when given the choice between Oxford and wikipedia... i still trust Oxford more
 
hajj said:
We proved a teacher that they dont work, so he stopped using them. :D

Niiiiiice....how did you go about doing that? I'd love to show some of my cocky professors.
 
Marty_ said:
KryptonZone is right. Wikipedia was recently rated better than britannica and a few others. I find that it is rarely innacurate, and false entries are removed with amazing swiftness. They must have a lot of staff watching the updates like hawkes.

Edit: And it's the idiots that muck it up who ruin it for everyone else. Grow up.

Totally agreed! There is an age when one is allowed to do these immature and childish things but if you can't restrain yourself from going to that kind of state, then remove yourself from somewhere people go for intellectual (i.e. mature) purposes.
 
No Boss said:
hajj said:
We proved a teacher that they dont work, so he stopped using them. :D

Niiiiiice....how did you go about doing that? I'd love to show some of my cocky professors.
The program they used only went for similarities of text, so even if you pasted the whole text in Word and changed most of the words with a synonym that Word suggested, the programm did not recognize it. You only had to make sure that you dont leave sentences untouched, that is the whole problem with those things, they do not get the context.
But our teacher was really cool anyway, just over 30 big South African Ex Rugby player who broke his neck a couple of years back. He only used our explanation to explain the school that he wont be using those system's :thumbsup:
 
Top