| Revision as of 10:55, 26 September 2008 editThe undertow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,802 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:13, 26 September 2008 edit undoLaw (talk | contribs)7,280 edits just wtf to the_undertowNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| ] ] 10:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | ] ] 10:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Far reach to say that Windows standards are based on a pay grade man. - no offense. <sup><small>]</small></sup><sub><small> ]</small></sub> 11:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:13, 26 September 2008
2 reasons
There are only 2 reasons why you do what you do:
1. It's indexed. It is. Most likely, for posterity, you continue because it has become the top 2 answer, when you are looking for questions. Why?
- Mediawiki. Not many people like to discuss this, but here is how it works: every edit saves a new page. We all know that. So imagine a page, as insignificant as it may be. Save it twice. It comes up on a search, maybe. Save the same edit over and over again, it gets indexed. Why, it is just one page? Have several users save it 50x. Now, according to a search engine, there are 50 revisions of that page, so the latest will come up. It's all about stats.
2. I edit it because I enjoy it.
- Enjoy which part? Getting indexed? Fighting vandals? Wanting to be an admin? Either way you are correct. You are fine.
So Chip, what's the problem?
1. It's indexed by pure virtue. It comes up as a query most times because of SO MANY revisions. Is that your fault? No.
2. But I enjoy it. So have fun with it. Please remember #1, and with that have fun.
So what can I do?
Nothing, because indexing is everything. No matter how many vandals you 'fight,' nor how many articles you start, it gets indexed by the amount of edits.
But remember, this project is flawed. Anyone can edit, but can they? IP addresses are reverted and registered users are able to maintain the site. Who is better? Neither.
So Chip, what is the best reference?
Text. Mainstream text. No one at Britannica allows this type of open source. There are many programs that you use. Linux, SQL, PHP, and so on. They are all great! By why is Windows so successful, besides sucking the blood out of others? It is because they are paid, they are qualified, and they have STANDARDS.
But Chip, don't you like open source?
I do. I use it. I adhere to it. But what wins are paid professionals. That is the nature of capitalism. We measure our talents in time.
So what do we do when looking up a subject?
Hey, look it up. That's fine. See the reference section? Use that. Take the article as a grain of salt, take the references seriously.
But Chip, you made 7K edits. That's alot. Is there a problem with WP?
When you take the most widely accredited source on the Internet, and call it reliable, it may be time to actually go and visit your own library. The Internet, pre-WP, was a guide. Now that WP is indexed as a top query result, use the references as your guide. As far as the article, just take it with a grain of salt. When you succeed, as I have, do not take the lower court as a good precedent, but look towards the end game - or the final outcome. WP is A source, but not the SOURCE, because you have millions of people, working for free, for a boss they have never met, and regardless if they have cited sources, they may not interpret them as well as the true ORIGINAL dissertation.
the_undertow 10:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Far reach to say that Windows standards are based on a pay grade man. - no offense. talk at me 11:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)