Comments on: Wikipedia editorial staff member lies about credentials

By: mario

mario — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:41:02 +0000

By: roopactuarl

roopactuarl — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:29:39 +0000

A man is trying a very unusual way to propose to his girlfriend. He wants people to forward an email to as many people as possible and he hopes that it will eventually get to his girlfriend. Details here: http://www.proposal-to-mary.com

Here is what he wants people to send by email:

You could help me a lot to spread my proposal to Mary – it is important that it is distributed as widely as possible so that it eventually reaches Mary. If you would like to support my proposal to Mary, please send the following text by email to a lot of people :-)

————- SNIP (email text end) —————

WHEN YOU RECEIVE THIS, PLEASE HELP TO DISTRIBUTE IT TO OTHER PEOPLE!

For a long time I have tried to find a special way to propose marriage to my girlfriend Mary, whom I know for five years now. I wanted it very special, romantic and memorable, something our grandchildren would still remember.

And here is my idea: I will send out the proposal to Mary to 50 complete strangers, people I don’t know – hoping, that they will forward my proposal to as many people as possible, which in turn forward it etc. And some day, I hope, it will reach Mary, after it has travelled a very long way. I know, it will take a long time and I am quite nervous…

From the poem MY Mary will know immediately that the proposal is for her.

I have created a homepage ( http://www.proposal-to-mary.com ) where you can find the current status of my quest. You can use the homepage to check if the proposal has already reached Mary (in that case it is not necessary anymore to forward the mail).

Once the proposal has reached Mary, I will put a note on these pages. Also I will publish there how many people have read the proposal so that everybody can see how far it has spread and that it is getting closer to Mary.

And of course you will find there what I am waiting for most: Mary’s answer! I can’t tell you, how nervous I am… Will she accept my proposal? Will she like the unusual way how she got it, through the hands of thousands of messengers all over the world?

Please cross your fingers for me! And please – help me by sending the mail to as many people as possible, to help it spread, so that it eventually reaches Mary.

And here is my proposal:

Mary, please forgive me, as you know English is not my native language. And I am not a poet. But I mean it from my heart.

My angel,

Five years ago, I will always remember the day When fate made us meet, blissful Alaskan moments in May Earth spun around us and a journey began Love, warmth, happiness, enough the years to span.

The longer it lasts the more grows our bond And with 80 still – of you I will be fond Whatever happens, I will stay at your side Through good and bad, together let us stride

No second with you was ever wasted
You are the sweetest I have ever tasted
We have spent so many years – why not a life?
Mary, will you marry me – and become my wife?

Mary, if you have received that and have recognized me, then give me a sign so that I can continue with the romantic part of my proposal…

————- SNIP (email text end) —————

By: Helen Masters

Helen Masters — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:16:06 +0000

The whole Wikipedia concept is fatally flawed. The notion that one can produce an authoritative encyclopedia without any kind of editorial control is patently ridiculous.

There is a far greater and more insidious threat to Wikipedia than simple character assassination or falsehood. It can broadly be labelled “infomercial content” (i.e. content that purports to be informative but has a commercial bias). A good example is the entry on Barcelona (Spain). The whole article reads like a tourist brochure and any reference to the city’s pollution problems is swiftly removed by an army of self-appointed censors. There are strong indications that the Barcelona Tourist Board (or its army of acolytes) has effectively hijacked the site. This kind of thing is going to become more prevalent as Wikipedia becomes better known. Basically, there is nothing that can be done to stop this corporate take-over of Wikipedia without editorial control yet such control runs counter to the whole Wiki ethos.

The idea that “a community of users” is going to apply some common sense criteria regarding content is a mistaken one. In the case of the Barcelona entry, the influence of Catalan/Spanish speakers on both content and style is all too evident. The locals seem eager to “sell” their city to the wider world and to show off their appalling English. Wikipedia not only lacks the control mechanisms to stop them, it also wilfully fails to recognize it has a serious problem.

By: Triston McIntyre

Triston McIntyre — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 05:55:49 +0000

Roy,
I appreciate your feedback, however my viewpoint is generated from one who is forced to reference authoritative sources both for work and school on a daily basis, and even though wikipedia is truly a great source all-around, it is still flawed in the nature of its being;anything that can be changed at any user’s whim is bound to be flawed constantly, in some minute regard or another. The resource, by size, is quite expansive and impressive, however, I stand by my opinion that as a literary source, it is by nature fallible to error.

By: roy

roy — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 05:50:23 +0000

I must agree with “Internet Esquire” in his second point re Wikipedia’s credibility. Tristan, I think your evaluation of a “for the people, by the people” information source, this time Wikipedia, where everyone has a voice, is harsh – to say the least. Even if that voice is flawed the truth will eventually be found out. Isn’t that the point of a Wiki and so Wikopedia? It is a gigantic resource in both size and importance.

By: Triston McIntyre

Triston McIntyre — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 04:16:51 +0000

If there were factual errors within my article, I wholeheartedly apologize..I would reference you to my source from whence the bad information was found: http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=17&art_id=39651&sid=12553212&con_type=1
If what you say is true, it doesn’t really parallel reality at all, and I would wonder why the source I used would put such a terrible spin on something, so far from the truth. However, in regards to Wikipedia’s credibility, I would say generally speaking, those in higher learning would not consider it a valid source of truth in the slightest; it is too subject to frequent and incorrect modification. For example, a friend of mine posted a modification regarding Mel Gibson, claiming his son attended a university that he did not. The post remained, unchallenged for over a year. There are other blatant discrepancies that linger around the site. Now, I do admit I will reference Wikipedia for personal use occasionally, but it is foolhardy to reference them as a unquestionable source of knowledge in any sort of important document. Regardless if this story is blatantly contrary to the truth, it could still theoretically diminish the respect the website is given.

By: Internet Esquire

Internet Esquire — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:43:36 +0000

Ironically enough, your post has many factual errors. Essjay disclosed his true identity before he was hired by Wikia, the for-profit cousin of Wikipedia and then he outed himself, prompting Daniel Brandt and company at the Wikipedia Review to contact The New Yorker, insisting that they post a correction. (See – http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778 -.) As for this being a huge hit to Wikipedia’s credibilty, I wholheartedly disagree. For a longer tome on my views, please seem my recent blog post – http://blog.xodp.org/2007/03/putting-essjays-fraud-into-perspective.html -.