JO
That's funny, for wikipedia, normally people put really nasty comments on there
It was changed several times yesterday... he had died at one point
I never find joking about people dying funny, remember when they did that to the actor who played Jim Branning, stupid f***wits
Inspector Sands posted:
Johnny83 posted:
nok32uk posted:
Who added this to Young Samuel's wikipage...
"Fell off a chair on 15th February 2007 whilst eating a chocolate chip tracker"
"Fell off a chair on 15th February 2007 whilst eating a chocolate chip tracker"
That's funny, for wikipedia, normally people put really nasty comments on there
It was changed several times yesterday... he had died at one point
I never find joking about people dying funny, remember when they did that to the actor who played Jim Branning, stupid f***wits
RO
Why did they have to do that couldn't they have left the page for a little while at least
There's a lot of editorial guidelines about what constitutes notability - and generally appearing on TV for 15 minutes fails to qualify somebody.
Johnny83 posted:
jrothwell97 posted:
It now redirects to the page on Never Mind the Buzzcocks.
Why did they have to do that couldn't they have left the page for a little while at least
There's a lot of editorial guidelines about what constitutes notability - and generally appearing on TV for 15 minutes fails to qualify somebody.
JO
Why did they have to do that couldn't they have left the page for a little while at least
There's a lot of editorial guidelines about what constitutes notability - and generally appearing on TV for 15 minutes fails to qualify somebody.
Fair enough. I still think that the editing should be limited though, that's why it has gone from been quite a good online encyclopedia to a free for all
Barney Boo posted:
Johnny83 posted:
jrothwell97 posted:
It now redirects to the page on Never Mind the Buzzcocks.
Why did they have to do that couldn't they have left the page for a little while at least
There's a lot of editorial guidelines about what constitutes notability - and generally appearing on TV for 15 minutes fails to qualify somebody.
Fair enough. I still think that the editing should be limited though, that's why it has gone from been quite a good online encyclopedia to a free for all
PE
Pete
Founding member
wikipedia gets more hopeless by the day, now it's become more noteable that you can vandalise it, this is all that's happening.
They really need to rethink their whole policy, whilst stuff like this works for smaller scale sites it won't work for something as large as wikipedia.
Course that won't happen as the people who run it are not far off religious nutcases.
They really need to rethink their whole policy, whilst stuff like this works for smaller scale sites it won't work for something as large as wikipedia.
Course that won't happen as the people who run it are not far off religious nutcases.
JR
Exactly. I've spent so much time reverting vandalism on Wikipedia, I could probably have earned enough money to retire and have developed a provable and workable method to obtain world peace...
They really need to close editing to anonymous users. I remember last year when Richard Hammond kept 'dying'...
Hymagumba posted:
wikipedia gets more hopeless by the day, now it's become more noteable that you can vandalise it, this is all that's happening.
They really need to rethink their whole policy, whilst stuff like this works for smaller scale sites it won't work for something as large as wikipedia.
Course that won't happen as the people who run it are not far off religious nutcases.
They really need to rethink their whole policy, whilst stuff like this works for smaller scale sites it won't work for something as large as wikipedia.
Course that won't happen as the people who run it are not far off religious nutcases.
Exactly. I've spent so much time reverting vandalism on Wikipedia, I could probably have earned enough money to retire and have developed a provable and workable method to obtain world peace...
They really need to close editing to anonymous users. I remember last year when Richard Hammond kept 'dying'...
ST
i changed a vandalised page about the scorpions virgin killers album which depicts a nude girl on the front. Some sick perv erased all the info and put up an unprintable sexual reference 
I retrieved the original information and editied it back in. That is the problem with wikepedia, it's too open to abuse and the modorators don't seem to care
I retrieved the original information and editied it back in. That is the problem with wikepedia, it's too open to abuse and the modorators don't seem to care
JO
I think only members should be able to edit it with non members (like myself) only having a read only status.
it's a shame it has been f*cked up so by tw*ts
stevek posted:
i changed a vandalised page about the scorpions virgin killers album which depicts a nude girl on the front. Some sick perv erased all the info and put up an unprintable sexual reference
I retrieved the original information and editied it back in. That is the problem with wikepedia, it's too open to abuse and the modorators don't seem to care
I retrieved the original information and editied it back in. That is the problem with wikepedia, it's too open to abuse and the modorators don't seem to care
I think only members should be able to edit it with non members (like myself) only having a read only status.
it's a shame it has been f*cked up so by tw*ts