neonsurge Posted April 11, 2006 Report Share Posted April 11, 2006 The Wikipedia entry on motorcycle trials could do with a bit of expanding/updating. Anyone here got editor permissions? At least there's a link to TC! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted April 11, 2006 Report Share Posted April 11, 2006 At least there's a link to TC! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I spotted that and wondered who did it. Thanks to whoever it was! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwc352 Posted April 11, 2006 Report Share Posted April 11, 2006 I added some of that content quite some time ago. The way Wikipedia works, anyone can edit the content. If I remember correctly, you just click on the edit button and start adding content. It's kind of like an ongoing work in progress with everyone having the ability to put in their two cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewis_gasgas Posted April 11, 2006 Report Share Posted April 11, 2006 I saw that need some info but needs to be more than 500 words ...can anyone improve it so i can use it for college ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
city trials Posted April 12, 2006 Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 (edited) It should come as no surprise that I would love Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia's own entry, it is a "multilingual Web-based free-content encyclopedia." Wikipedia is also known as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Anybody who spends a little time learning the formatting standards and methods (look at the Wikipedia Wikipedia Boot Camp for help) can edit, add to, and create articles on the site, contributing their knowledge and expertise to that of the community. It's a truly amazing model for information collection and dispersion, putting control of the information in the hands of the users. Wikipedia's main strength can also be its biggest weakness - by creating a community-based site and calling it an "encyclopedia" it makes it possible for people to publish false and malicious information in a trusted forum. However, a conscientious researcher will always consider his or her source carefully before considering the information to be factual. With the advent of the internet and the ability for anybody to publish anything, this is even more important. Worse than information that is incomplete or incorrect is information that is purposely misleading, irrelevant or inconsistent with the mission of the site. Take for example the John Siegenthaler biography controversy in which a Wikipedia user edited the biography entry for John Siegenthaler Sr., suggesting that he had a role in the Kennedy assassination. Other people may edit entries and add information that is completely irrelevant to the article. Here are some quotes on Wilipedia. "[H]owever closely a Wikipedia article may at some point in its life attain to reliability, it is forever open to the uninformed or semiliterate meddler." - Former Encyclopedia Britannica editor Robert McHenry in an oft-cited 2004 piece The Faith-Based Encyclopedia. "Wikipedia knows all, and what it doesn't know, you can tell it." - Homer Simpson "The real problem is not Wikipedia, but reporters who fail to check their facts." - Ringo "Only an idiot and a thug would scribble nonsense in a library book." - Jerry Garcia "I love to edit most everything I read on Wikipedia, the editors hate me and send me nasty e-mails telling me to stop! - Craig G. Edited April 12, 2006 by City Trials Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.