Wikipedia

I hope not

Looks like their moderators aren't doing their jobs.

What's all this about? Wikipedia seems fine to me. Are some zealots displeased about some Wikipedia articles?

There's too much fighting about the editing process on Wikipedia.

I'm in the process of setting up "Gusipedia". It will be a site where one can find answers to anything. The REAL answers, not controversial crap like on Wikipedia.

Dr. Chai will be assisting me

I will edit.

Genius requires no editing.

Or is that genus?

ahem...I will be acting as a Consultant.

Does Gusipedia have a future?

Don't be ridiculous.

No, the zealots are happy because they're writing the Wikipedia enties.

There are a few excellent posts, but most appear to be written by high school kids.

Related new thread should be good for a laugh (and I'm so happy my accompanying poll is on the A2K home now! ):

Colbert, Wikipedia, elephants' penises and the Uncyclopedia

Mind you, in general I think Wikipedia is a laudable experiment; has very useful entries on most subjects (though things obviously get more iffy on more controversial and political stuff*); is maintained by a great number of idealists who put in a lot of work; and pioneers a valuable non-profit, non-corporate, collaborative mode of grassroots production.

Obviously, entries stand or fall on the quality of the editors on a subject at hand. And the shared knowledge of the community will probably never equal the hyperscrutinous professionalism of a venerable proper encyclopedia. I would never take a Wikipedia entry as the final word on anything. But I often use it to quickly look some common-knowledge detail up that has passed me by or slipped my mind, just because it's simpler than Googling, and I also use it as a starting point when reading up on a specific subject, going on to more in-depth stuff from there if it rouses my interest enough.

*Actually, it's not so much the hyper-controversial entries that pose a danger on Wikipedia; the collective scrutiny of those is so intense that any boo-boo is either quickly removed or results in an endless to-and-fro that will have the item flagged as contested (so you're warned in advance). The problem I've come across on Wikipedia is more re entries on lesser known controversies that only attract niche interest groups, since biased editing there can survive uncontested much longer than on much-scrutinised universal hot-button issues.

Do the links work?

What links? The ones in my Colbert, Wikipedia etc thread? They should, I just posted it...

No I mean the links posted on Wikipedia.

Generally, the external links in Wikipedia are live, and frequently they'll take you to, or at least get you pointed toward, primary source material. Personally, I often find the links of more value than the Wiki articles themselves.

Oh, and since I hardly ever get to say this, I think its importamt to mention that I'm in completew agreement with nimh on this one

I am willing to offer advise of my areas of exertise which, incidentally, covers just about everything except cooking recipes.