Take that wikipedia! (1 Viewer)

mjp

mjp

Founding member
A google search for Bukowski lists this site as the first result now, above that festering stinkhole of idiot-trivia and misinformation, wikipedia.

They still top us in the results for a search for Charles Bukowski, but I'm working on that.




Oh yeah, I don't like wikipedia, if you couldn't guess.
 
Purple Stickpin said:
Wikipedia serves its purpose. It allows lazy, uncreative students to get flunked by professors who have the sack to do it.
Click to expand...

And it gives douche bags the fierce intellectual weaponry with which to joust over the minutiae of ancient eastern philosophies.

Ahhh, thanks Wikipedia for making the world a better place.
 
A buddy of mine, Mickey Z (mickeyz.net) was skewered by a couple of academic fuck wads who thought it would be fun to write a bunch a bullshit about him on wikipedia...and he was basically defenseless against it, no matter how many times people who actually knew him corrected the entries they would get changed back the next day. For some reason, whenever you look up a subject on google, the wikipedia entry pops up in the top 5. Fucking ridiculous.
 
Right, why leave a link to best and most serious Buk site on the Internet. It only has the largest amount of Buk poems and Buk research ever seen in cyperspace. What a bunch of jerks!
 
You GOTTA love that they link to Harper Collins webpage which starts by saying that bukowski was born in 1919. Click on the timeline to the right for more wrong dates.

HERE

Fucking classic that they don;t want to link to a website with accurate info and the site of the company that owns the rights to his work does not even care enough to get his year of birth correct...
Bill
 
At least Harper Collins links to Buknet. That means they recognize Buknet as a most important Buk site on the net. That's more than can be said for Wikipedia.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When I tell my students that Wikipedia is a forbidden website when doing research reports, I swear 80% of them fall into a total state of panic. It's like I've cut their fingers off. Same thing happens when they learn they have to write their essays by hand and have to use this thing called a dictionary. I know there is some value there, but when you know what Wikipedia is but not an encyclopedia, a line must be drawn. Plus, as Jmoshea said, I find it very difficult to want to support a website that knowingly continues to show incorrect or blatant, intentional bullshit simply because it was considered a Wiki "truth" for ten seconds.
 
mjp said:
They removed the link to bukowski.net from the Bukowski article saying nothing's valid here because it's a "fan site" and apparently because you can't have a sense of humor and be a Wikipedia reference.

This is a tragedy and a travesty! Not being linked to from Wikipedia really hurts my, and Josh Rock's, feelings.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is bullshit anyways.
I tried to edit the article to include a "References in Popular Culture" section, which I think is cool and relevant as it shows just how influential Buk was, and it was removed within minutes.
 
christopher said:
I tried to edit the article to include a "References in Popular Culture" section, which I think is cool and relevant as it shows just how influential Buk was, and it was removed within minutes.
Click to expand...
Well, "References in Popular Culture" sections are one of the things that make Wikipedia a joke, but you're right about it all being bullshit anyway.
 
How many encyclopedias have References in Popular Culture sections? That's a rhetorical question.

Their goal is to create an online encyclopedia, but the bulk of it is Internet-centric bullshit written by a crowd of subnormals, mouth-breathers and shut-ins (think: Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons). Then "verified" by the same.

A nice hobby for them, perhaps. Keeps them from what would likely be bleak lives of hoarding and pedophilia, but as a serious reference it is lacking in just about every way.
 
Gotcha.
Please do not misinterpret.
I am by no means pro-wikipedia.

That being said, I leave you with a quote from the great Michael Scott:
Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information.
 
mjp said:
the bulk of it is Internet-centric bullshit written by a crowd of subnormals, mouth-breathers and shut-ins (think: Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons). Then "verified" by the same.

A nice hobby for them, perhaps. Keeps them from what would likely be bleak lives of hoarding and pedophilia, but as a serious reference it is lacking in just about every way.
Click to expand...
I cannot tell you how many people I know spend literally their entire weekends participating in "Wiki Wars". Educated people, people who have a billion other things to do, who every Monday tell me, with genuine pride and fury, about their battles and new strategies to win. I'd rather go quail hunting with Dick Cheney.
 
christopher said:
Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information.
Click to expand...

If anybody can write whatever they want about any subject, then you know you're not getting the best possible information, I should think.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You should google/wikipedia "Michael Scott" or "The Office". Its a US television show. Its a joke...the quote.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mjp said:
[...] the bulk of it is Internet-centric bullshit written by a crowd of subnormals, mouth-breathers and shut-ins [...]
Click to expand...
That's true for a lot of subjects.

However, wiki usually delivers correct information in cases, where there's proof and evidence and accepted sources, like here or here.
 
well, they removed the references to bukowski.net, and a very astute fellow named "nightranger" then got in a totally original dig about everyone on the site being 14 year-old girls. i swear i've never heard that one before. it reminds me of this zinger i've been working on (it's not quite ready yet, but it's getting close) where i tell people i disagree with on the internet that they are posting from their parents' basement! and obviously, someone whose handle is "nightranger" is pretty much the paragon of well-adjusted contemporary cool.
 
jordan said:
well, they removed the references to bukowski.net, and a very astute fellow named "nightranger" then got in a totally original dig about everyone on the site being 14 year-old girls.
Click to expand...
Not before banning me from making edits:

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Smog.net, does not meet our username policy.​
Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).​
A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive.​

At least Night Ranger isn't petty or vindictive. Ha.
 

Similar threads

mjp
Am I really *that* old? Take the quiz yourself!
Replies
30
Views
4K
Digney in Burnaby
Digney in Burnaby
mjp
Google going after wikipedia?
Replies
7
Views
2K
mjp
mjp
L
that there internet
Replies
11
Views
2K
Bruno Dante
Bruno Dante
Johannes
Correspondence that kicks ass
Replies
17
Views
2K
Bukfan
Bukfan
Djune
did I write that?
Replies
16
Views
4K
Djune
Djune

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top