Wikipedia postings - Warning

[tsptalk]

Cool! I see a couple of typos, but I'm not complaining.

I guess anyone can edit it so let's see if anyone hacks it up.

 

[James48843]

Cool! I see a couple of typos, but I'm not complaining.

I guess anyone can edit it so let's see if anyone hacks it up.

You can go fix it. just click on the edit page function. I started the "stub". Now, complying with Wikipedia's rules for "neutral point of view", you can add or modify anything on the entry you believe would add to mankind's knowledge about the subject.

A typo is considered a "minor edit". When you finish your modification, and want to save it, you'll see a box to check for that.

 

[tsptalk]

Thanks James. I appreciate it.

 

[Rod]

ok- i got it back up, at least for an initial review.


Care to make a contribution? Have at it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tsptalk

well written!

 

[phil]

Nice job.

 

[phil]

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/2007/08/19/118958/Hacker-discovers.htm

It is true that there has been interference in wikipedia postings, but the people who do it usually leave a footprint....oops.

A U.S. hacker’s homemade program to pinpoint origins of Wikipedia edits indicates that alterations to the popular online encyclopedia have come from the CIA and the Vatican.

“While I cannot confirm whether any changes were made from CIA computers, the agency always expects its computer systems to be used responsibly,” CIA spokesman George Little said in response to an AFP inquiry.

 

[phil]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee3tUnuTAsk&feature=related

 

[nnuut]

Sad, Whikipedia is so bad that Fox News reported themselves. Fast Encyclopedia info can't be considered dependable and accurate.:suspicious:

 

[phil]

Actually, that's not what they said. They seemed to indicate exactly who was trying to edit wiki and their motivation for doing it. It's not academics or looney groups (they have their own outlets) but people with an agenda.

 

[nnuut]

Actually, that's not what they said. They seemed to indicate exactly who was trying to edit wiki and their motivation for doing it. It's not academics or looney groups (they have their own outlets) but people with an agenda.

That's NOT what I said.

 

[phil]

Fox also points out (quite correctly) that their program can determine who is doing the editing, and it becomes self-correcting over time.

 

[Buster]

Nice Job Jim with the Wiki page..

 

[Show-me]

I had a school board meeting last week and some of the teachers gave presentations of what they are doing in class. One teacher was asked how they weed out what sites are reliable references and she replied that Wikipedia is absolutely not allowed due to its questionable content. :nuts:

 

[WorkFE]

Show-me,
I hope that was a school board decision and not hers. I do have a problem if individual teachers are determining what is censored. I may disagree with the ease in which one may input data into wiki but it is respected reference material in some circles.

 

[Show-me]

Good point and my school board is not that involved. I will look into it.

 

[WorkFE]

Society complains that schools don't provide enough discipline, schools complain society is not involved with the students enough. The education of our children at all levels requires our undivided attention. And when that does not occur the education they receive may be skewed in one individuals view. Checks and balances.
My son graduated high school 4 years ago but I still attend all open forum school board meetings.

 

[owusuboamahy]

Good Stuff