Wikipedia Sucks!

Why is wp going to shit?
Does this give you some idea?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eren_Yeager

Red links everywhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stegana_species

Found in South Beloit, Illinois:
That looks like a good-enough "reference" to me. Difficult to find perhaps and not Googleable. Tough shit.

(Yes, I know, the shriekers will shriek "it's not properly formatted!!! (then flaps arms)" Okay, so why haven't you fixed it, because it's been tagged for ELEVEN YEARS.....)

At first I thought this was a gag. It's not a gag.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_a ... Abuse_Lake

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/alcohol ... no-really/

if you don't like that you could always go to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Island

Someone reminded me about the ugly and berserk editwar that produced Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing. Ambi, nigh-legendary crank and early arbitrator, fought with Aberglas over the claim that the bombing was the work of the ASIO. Which makes anything the CIA did look milquetoast.

Thus: some people are (STILL) claiming the Australian intelligence community was willing to blow up other Australians, right in the middle of Sydney, for "unspecified reasons" or to "justify their existence", with the connivance of the local police? That is the deadly-serious claim.

The facts of the case have been de-emphasized so a few "good editors" can scream CONSPIRACY over and over. For SIXTEEN YEARS this article has been broken. It's not "improving, and quickly".

IF you want know all about the masters of the Royal Household here is crap wiki artilce on the subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_the_Household

I have no clue after going through that article whats up or down in Royal Household. Any way this type of article that would not get approved for any proper encyclopedia as I suspect nobody cares about the Royal Household.

Dr Mario wrote: ↑

Sun May 02, 2021 12:57 am

IF you want know all about the masters of the Royal Household here is crap wiki artilce on the subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_the_Household
I have no clue after going through that article whats up or down in Royal Household. Any way this type of article that would not get approved for any proper encyclopedia as I suspect nobody cares about the Royal Household.

Not surprising for WP. It appears to have been written by a royal-family fanboy. Who was later blocked for cut-pasting copyrighted material. The lack of historical detail is not surprising, as the Royal Household has been a reliable source of scandals for Fleet Street to "report" for the past century or so. The queen really wants that crap covered up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... /Craigy144

Dr Mario wrote: ↑

Sun May 02, 2021 12:57 am

I have no clue after going through that article whats up or down in Royal Household. Any way this type of article that would not get approved for any proper encyclopedia as I suspect nobody cares about the Royal Household.

You would be surprised. Millions of pounds (and beaucoup dollars) have been made printing books on this stuff. Shit, half of the plot content of The Crown is predicated on the idea people are absolutely dying to know how the household works.

The existence of articles like this would undoubtedly be covered by any sensible reading of the whole, Wikipedia is both an general encyclopedia and a specialist reference work principle/mantra/pillar.

The issue for Wikipedia, of course, is that the whole information space for this topic is also awash with gossip and trivia and fancruft.

A proper encyclopedia would have the resources and the motive to filter the wheat from the chaff. Wikipedia does not.

Proper encyclopedias that would cover topics like this, that could produce useful and sensible articles on things like the Master of the Household, encylopedias that could properly make use of the digital age where you're no longer bound by the physical limitations of literal book binding, can no longer exist, because Wikipedia.

It's chicken and egg.

And of course, as is the way of Wikipedia, while there clearly was at some point, one or more people out there who were interested and motivated enough to try and make an article here, they are all long gone, all for reasons that are well known to be the reasons that put off most editors.

The very first person to even introduce the idea that this article could probably do with some information being added to it from an identifiable source......

Hoey, Brian (1992). All The Queen's Men: Inside The Royal Household. London: Harper Collins. ISBN 0246138513.

......all the way back in 2005, lasted only five more years on Wikipedia, before getting himself blocked.

The article will likely exist for another five or ten years, before eventually being merged under the new policy of WP:HOLYSHITDOYOUREALISEHOW MUCHUNFINISHEDJUNKTHATSNEVERGOINGTOGETFINISHEDTHATWEACTUAULLYHAVEAROUNDHERE?

Fungible information

The article is largely unchanged since being created in 2008, and consists only of this, with references of course:

Fungible information is the information for which the means of encoding is not important.[1] Classical information theorists and computer scientists are mainly concerned with information of this sort. It is sometimes referred as speakable information.[2]

Wikipedia: "always improving".

badmachine wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 3:33 am

Fungible information
The article is largely unchanged since being created in 2008

And that article SHOULD be more important, because of this. Which dates from 2018 and is currently a VERY hot area. What good is a long, long article about NFTs if your "reference work" does a terrible job of explaining "digital fungibility" in the first place?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fungible_token

I truly feel sorry for any layman who looks thru the cryptocurrency articles trying to figure out how the hell cryptocurrencies and blockchains work. Most of them are badly written. Again, I think blockchains have legitimate real-world applications. But suspect they are mostly being used as "obscure fads" to screw people. Let's not talk about Dogecoin, please.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cryptocurrencies