Hey, lookit

[RicardoLuigi...]

*Gasp* It's amazing!

 

[PoM]

*Cough*http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=156797*Cough*

[90SK]

Yeah, this was announced by The Doctor in the Swamp and in Ahto. He also posted a thread in the Indiana Jones discussion area.

 

Feel free to add whatever you want, as long as it betters the entry.

[Gabez]

Mwahahahaha.

[DarthAve]

Mmmmm, I wish I had a funny pic to show people refrencing wikipedia, but alass, I do not. Still, it's cool LF is known on wikipedia.

[RicardoLuigi...]

*Cough*http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=156797*Cough*

 

...

 

...

 

...shut up.

[PoM]

I'm innocent, it was my alter ego.

Honestly.

 

Mwahahahaha.

I don't get it.

[RicardoLuigi...]

I don't get it.

 

I kinda do...but not really.

[Joshi]

*sigh* The nature of Wikipedia means that anyone can change any entry they want, to whatever they want (hence Penny-Arcades rant on Wikipedia a few days ago). Therefore, in the comic posted above, Skelator decided to produce... objective information on He-Man and deleted what was already there... it's not that hard.

[DrMcCoy]

Likewise, it's not hard for anyone to revert his changes...

[Gabez]

Except that they then have to re-write the entire thing. Mwahahaha!

[RicardoLuigi...]

Skelator decided to produce... objective information on He-Man and deleted what was already there... it's not that hard.

 

Unless you don't know who Skelator is...

 

I understood what he was doing but it wasn't humorous since I've never seen He-Man.

[DrMcCoy]

Except that they then have to re-write the entire thing. Mwahahaha!

 

Err, no... It's just a click on "history" on the top of the page, select the old version, "edit this page", maybe give a "Revert" as the reason/describtion and then "save"...

[Joshi]

Yes, but until you, or some kind person goes along and changes it back to what you or said person thinks is fact, that data is wrong for anyone who cares to look, you can't exactly call it the most comprehensive encyclopedia on the web.

[DrMcCoy]

Well, I, or some kind of person, could also check the "history" and/or "discussion" page...

Of course it's not the place to end your recherche (a single source should never be), it's just a good start...

[Joshi]

Obviously, I'd never just use one source, but I also wouldn't trust Wikipedia if I ever wanted to check something quickly. If anything, if I were writing a report or essay or something, I'd use it to find out bits about it so i can resaerch it much better elsewhere.

[Thrik]

Wikipedia is better for finding out about less serious things. Examples include television programmes, games, communities (as highlighted in this thread) and websites which may otherwise be difficult to find a collected, concise and third-party bit of information about (ie: not the "About Us" paragraph). For the most part, Wikipedia is accurate for that sort of thing.

 

Where I wouldn't ever use it for is researching serious work or whatever.

[Gabez]

Hardly gospel truth, but it isn't exactly that bad either. ;

[Joshi]

the above artical says that next month, testing on a new mechanism will begin to review the accuracy of the articals. Considering the main point in Penny-arcades huge rant (and my small one right there) was that nothing like that existed, I guess it's good that they're improving on things.

[mrGoodsoup]

BwHAAHH! The quotes are the important part: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia