Geeks across the world are now banging their heads and praying to their respective deities due to news that Wikipedia is down. Taking suggestions on what Wiki-addicts can do until the site returns.
Comments ... #
Get some sun
Organize fantasy board games
Come up from the basement
Do you just get the home page, or can you also access articles, upso?
I still get intermittent access - sometimes the links work with Red Xs instead of pictures, and sometimes I get the DNS error message.
- Get some sun
- Organize fantasy board games
- Get laid
- Order Proactive
- Come up from the basement
But people may need to read Wikipedia to learn how to do those things.
It could be worse for Wikipedia. Mar 24, 2010 Telegraph UK story Facebook 'linked to rise in syphilis'.
Ick! Twitch twitch. j/k
Does look messed up. I can load it but it's completely broken. Internal links broken, formatting and CSS borked. Just some of the article text is coming through.
jr: sun == bad, leaving basement means I can't play World of Warcrafty 24/7
j/k kinda :)
You can always try Conservapedia. Sure the Earth is only 6000 years old and floride is some liberal plot(I made that up) but its a fun read.
It was created because Wikipedea was too liberal.
Oh right, I forgot about Conservapedia.
"... but its a fun read."
You may need to heed item three on Ryan's alternative list of things to do.
Delete cache, clean out cookies, restart explorer/foxfire or whatever web browser you are using? It sounds like something is stuck in cache. Sorry, dude!
Nah, it was the real deal, an epic Wikipedia meltdown of Biblical proportions. Wikipedia claims it was a three-hour crash, but by my count problems lasted about four-and-a-half hours. Geeks and high school students writing term papers around the world were in mourning.
Our city high school won't allow citations from Wiki, they consider it an uncredible source.
Fully realize what a fossil i am but reminds me of the old commercial "We make money the old fashioned way... we earn it"
All those books in public libraries collecting dust. Tsk Tsk
Completely agreed that Wikipedia is a no-no for citations, as the site is rife with vandalism and inaccurate information. I use Wikipedia as a staring point for research (especially if there is a bibliography page) and for the public domain images for my PowerPoints.
Many of my students groan when I make them find REAL BOOKS for papers and research - they want to use only Web material. The problem with a Web-only research approach is that the Internet is filled with worthless information, and it takes a considerable amount of skill to separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff. For example, I have had fourth-year history majors inadvertently cite Holocaust denial websites in papers on the Holocaust.
That's exactly what I use it for too Mike. It's just a starting point. Also like you I like it for the images for PowerPoints I have to do for a couple of my business classes.
I have to admit I use Wikipedia more than I should, but I often check out the citations. I have a pretty good grounding from high school plus my own reading. My father was a WW II anti-aircraft gunner, then infantryman so I got interested in why he was there. The bookmobile had enough to keep me busy until they build the Washington Branch of the library. My dad mentioned Frank Buck, and the bookmobile had two or three books written by him. I fell in love with dinosaurs after reading a Disney comic book about them my mom let me buy before a visit to the doctor. The bookmobile had several books about them. Sometimes I think the bookmobile was the right size for a kid to get started on reading.
Wikipedia article: Reliability of Wikipedia - but is this article reliable?
Mar 22, 2010 - Wikipedia: Write First, Ask Questions Later :
According to the study, students in the social sciences and humanities, subjects emphasizing argumentation and critical reading, are less-frequent users of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the Washington researchers didnít ask these students how much they rely on Spark Notes.It turns out that students also distrust Wikipedia, though not with the same intensity their teachers do. Only 16% of students find Wikipedia articles credible. To verify the information they find on Wikipedia, these skeptics use other sources, ranging from academic journals which they find online (that should please their instructors) to YouTube videos (that might not). And students also know when not to cite their sources. In many cases, even when they use it, students donít list Wikipedia in their bibliographies, because that could lower their grade.
March 2010 - Most students use Wikipedia, avoid telling profs about it :
Eighty-two percent of the students surveyed said they went to Wikipedia for background information or a summary about a topic, often using it as a way to get started on further research (76 percent).
Only 17 percent said they used Wikipedia because they felt it was more credible than other websites, and that's not even including more academic research materials. A very heavy majority (97 percent) still referred to course readings to get background on a topic, as well as scholarly research databases (93 percent).Additionally, students are aware of the stigma against using Wikipediaóso much so that they avoid telling their professors that it was included in the research process at all.
The pie chart shows that 52% of students surveyed in the Univ. of Washington study use Wikipedia always or often. Apparently, 3% don't know whether or not they use Wikipedia. A separate Facebook survey reports that the same percentage of students acknowledge using mind-altering chemicals to help them write their papers.