Export thread

..of 2008 and 2009, at least.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...ewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html

Oh, what's that at number 2? Is it the Jonas Brothers? HELL NO!

Charssinger should love number 14 AND 19, too.

My students make up for many of the World War II hits...

I think I've read, like, 95% of those articles. I spend way too much time reading trivial stuff, don't I?

Looks like most Wikipedia viewers are nerds and kids.

And people who know good music.


And are curious about the word "wiki".

I've probably come across those articles at some point, but I don't remember ever actively searching any of them.

24) Abrham Lincoln (23,743)

WTF?

That's a pretty sad list.

Calleja said:

And people who know good music.

Click to expand...

Well, no, people who don't. That's why they have to wiki it.

Today's featured article is Alice in Chains

Not as much crap as I would have expected

hehe

in 2008 penis was 36th
in 2009 vagina is 36. vagina is the new penis.

Well clearly, they needed a year to mull over the information of the penis and now they're moving on to the vagina

Seriously though, I've learned a lot of info on Wikipedia. Too bad you're never entirely sure how reliable it is so I always have to put this layer or cynicism between me and Wikipedia whenever I read anything.

I don't, I just usually head straight for the cited sources after I read the article

Calleja said:

I don't, I just usually head straight for the cited sources after I read the article

Click to expand...

Cited sources don't mean anything. Many are interviews and articles from third parties which are just as unreliable and those articles don't have cited sources to back up their claims either.

For example, a while ago I read an entry about a certain song and Wikipedia had credited some guitarist as playing a certain part in that song "because the band's guitarist was not skilled enough to play it". Considering I had seen that guitarist play it LIVE in front of an audience, that claim seemed dubious so I went to look at the source. The Source was an American rock magazine who had quoted the guitarist that had played that part of the song. When I went to delve deeper, I found on ANOTHER site that the band's guitarist had invited the other guitarist over during a recording session and they had simply ended up playing both guitars at the same time instead of recording them separately and then mixing them together.

So yeah, "unreliable" is the word here. I've seen tons of other incorrect Wikipedia entries that had remained that way for years. I've corrected a few but my corrections often got thrown out because there was no online source toe cite even though the original cited source was dubious at best.

YES! We made it! Our country is popular enough but mysterious enough to beat out vaginas and penises in a ranked list of queries!

CAN-A-DA! CAN-A-DA!

Cat said:

Today's featured article is Alice in Chains

Click to expand...

At least the person who decides which articles are featured has good taste.

checkeredhat said:

YES! We made it! Our country is popular enough but mysterious enough to beat out vaginas and penises in a ranked list of queries!

CAN-A-DA! CAN-A-DA!

Click to expand...

People just look it up to when bets are made as to whether it's real or not.

As far as those other subjects go, I can just see the nerd hoards sweating the possibility of getting laid and rushing off to do research.

After the first few, that list goes down shit creek really fast.

I wonder if the Jonas Brothers, who some people insist on calling "the new beatles", are gonna be so searched for 50 years from now.

No, wait, I don't wonder. I know they won't. Prissy bitches.

I wonder if most marketing speak of today is going to stick to any product in 50 years...

oh, be quiet

I wonder if most marketing speak of today is going to stick to any product in 50 years...

but yeah, calling something the New Beatles is pretty meaningless, since it doesn't specify what exactly about them is Beatles-ish or how they're filling a Beatle-shaped void in pop culture's heart. it's empty marketing speak that sounds like high praise.

In fact, just call my penis the New Beatle.

Does it harmonize?

it's been in my pants. I haven't really heard it play

Eventually, I'm probably going to end up calling it Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Wang

You share your wang with a whole club of lonely people?

Man, THAT'S community service.

I look forward to the time when it wouldn't dance with another when it saw her standing there

it'd be more of a bragging matter if SHE wouldn't dance with another once she saw IT standing there...

Seraphyn said:

I've probably come across those articles at some point, but I don't remember ever actively searching any of them.

Click to expand...

clean your screen, plz

Calleja said:

it'd be more of a bragging matter if SHE wouldn't dance with another once she saw IT standing there...

Click to expand...

I'm not planning on tooting my own horn

I bet decades ago there was some dude saying "who's gonna give a fuck about these limeys in 30 years?"