Joel Schultz Posted June 23, 2006 Report Posted June 23, 2006 Wow, SC, you're famous! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Smart Please note that the linked article does not conform to Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" standard and has been nominated for editing to fix this. I point this out now because there does seem to be a slight negative bias in my opinion. I still thought this post-worthy nonetheless -- how many people do you think get a Wikipedia entry for themselves, after all? Heh, maybe someone around here is a Wikipedia member author who might want to assist on bringing it to NPOV.
LostInSpace Posted June 23, 2006 Report Posted June 23, 2006 If you go into history: 13:42, 20 April 2006 211.30.79.13 (→Bill Huffman) Article History Why is that name Bill Huffman so familiar? Wasn't that the stalker guy?
Wolferz Posted June 23, 2006 Report Posted June 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: If you go into history: 13:42, 20 April 2006 211.30.79.13 (→Bill Huffman) Article History Why is that name Bill Huffman so familiar? Wasn't that the stalker guy? Yup, that was him. aka Shirley. Luser extraordinaire in my book.
Joel Schultz Posted June 23, 2006 Author Report Posted June 23, 2006 It looks like there's some discussion on whether Huffman's history with SC is worth documenting, the chief problem being finding credible media references meeting Wikipedia standards.
Supreme Cmdr Posted June 23, 2006 Report Posted June 23, 2006 heh, that's been on there for quite a while now. If you look at the edit history, you'll see that there's been a virtual tug-of-war in edits. The detractors go there, post a bunch of crap. Then someone comes along and removes it. Rinse. Repeat.
weegee_101 Posted June 23, 2006 Report Posted June 23, 2006 Yeah, I love their fight over the werewolves site even when it really is against Wikipedia policy. It can't be proven... so its not legitimate information.
Supreme Cmdr Posted July 13, 2006 Report Posted July 13, 2006 Am the only one who finds the revert wars going on in my entry, rather ridiculous? This is exactly why Wiki is a failure.
Kalshion Posted July 13, 2006 Report Posted July 13, 2006 No Boss Man, your not the only one. I'm actually quite certain everyone here know's those people are idiot's
Supreme Cmdr Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Now that the denizens of the Usenet flamewars know about a revert war going on, everybody wants in. Pathetic really; but go take a look.
Guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 I think Derek should pay homage to Shirley. The next BC game should have some rabid, unarmed, stupid transport going around sending communications to any passing player. SHIIIRLEEEYYYYHHHH!!! (in the tone of the WASSSAAAAAAP commercials)
Supreme Cmdr Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Oh boy, Shirley!!! Now thats a blast from the past.
Guest $iLk Posted July 23, 2006 Report Posted July 23, 2006 Wikipedia is great for finding information on anything that relates to people and places that no one cares about. For anything else - there are gaping holes in reliability. The good news is: Wikipedia is about as accurate as most encyclopedias according to studies that have been done - at least in terms of research topics. In terms of finding information on current events - forget it for the most part until controversy cools down.
Supreme Cmdr Posted July 24, 2006 Report Posted July 24, 2006 I'm this close to initiating a Wiki Jihad. I'm gonna start working on the fatwah next week.
weegee_101 Posted July 25, 2006 Report Posted July 25, 2006 I'm honestly surprised you haven't already. None of these disputes can really amount to any good in the end, can they? There are so many people trying to drive a negative bias into that article its sickening.
Kalshion Posted July 25, 2006 Report Posted July 25, 2006 And Wikipedia's staff are oblivious to the fact.... sad really
weegee_101 Posted July 26, 2006 Report Posted July 26, 2006 I've lost a lot of respect for Wikipedia's staff over the past few months. It seems to me that they kind of pick and choose where their rules should be followed or not. This is no exception. There have been several bias violations on the Derek Smart page they've refused to do anything about.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now