The Great Unknown
For this part of the assignment, I took a look at the Cyberpunk
wikipedia article. I'm already somewhat familiar with it, but I'd never
clicked on "edit" before. What greeted me was a confusing box of code
that I think I sort of understand, but probably need more practice with
before actually editing anything. In any event, this article is really
good, so I'm not going to be touching it any time in the near future.
There was also a notice asking would-be editors to make an account instead of just making changes. I can see why. If I was in charge of wikipedia, I'd make it manditory to have an account before editing. But that's just me.
My favorite part was at the bottom of the edit page. It reads as follows:
Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
Basically, if you don't have anything smart to say, shut up and go away. I'm not feeling so comfortable with the idea of editing an article anymore. Though there are always those stubs. No one cares about those.
I also checked out the revison history. It looked like the only recent changes were pretty minor, along with some vandalism, which was reverted pretty quickly.
The discussion page was kind of amusing. I counted at least four topics that basically boiled down to "IS THIS CYBERPUNK???" Usually the answer was no. There was also the occasional "Who the hell wrote this stupid paragraph?"
Also, people really need to sign their comments. Four tildes, people, it's not hard.
I then ventured over to Seton Hill and St. Vincent's wiki articles. They're both pretty short, but still have a fairly good amount of information for schools of their size because, let's face it, we're not at Harvard.
Both articles start with the history of the schools, which were boring, so I didn't read them. Seton Hill's page then list all those random campus programs we have, plus grad programs, and notable alumni. St. Vincent had only two sections, Traditions and Notable alumni. Seeing as that was boring as all heck (But hey! That's a nice basilica, St. V), I went to the discussion and edit pages to see if there had been any drama lately.
Seton Hill's discussion page had a whole one discussion going on, where some anon complains about a misattributed quotation. Apparently no one cared enough to reply. There hadn't been many interesting edits lately, either. I guess we're not even interesting enough to vandalize.
The only talking going on over at St. Vincent was by what appeared to be a bot who took down an image that violated some fair use laws. I find the idea that Wikipedia has computer programs that can make simple changes by themselves kinda cool. I have no idea how advanced these things are (probably not very).
Most of the changes on the history page were minor, and the only thing worth mentioning was a reversion with the note "Wikipedia is not the news." I compared the new and old versions to see what was so offensive, and found a little note about a recently won football game. God forbid.
My goodness, that was boring. It's time for a break.
Trackback
There was also a notice asking would-be editors to make an account instead of just making changes. I can see why. If I was in charge of wikipedia, I'd make it manditory to have an account before editing. But that's just me.
My favorite part was at the bottom of the edit page. It reads as follows:
Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
Basically, if you don't have anything smart to say, shut up and go away. I'm not feeling so comfortable with the idea of editing an article anymore. Though there are always those stubs. No one cares about those.
I also checked out the revison history. It looked like the only recent changes were pretty minor, along with some vandalism, which was reverted pretty quickly.
The discussion page was kind of amusing. I counted at least four topics that basically boiled down to "IS THIS CYBERPUNK???" Usually the answer was no. There was also the occasional "Who the hell wrote this stupid paragraph?"
Also, people really need to sign their comments. Four tildes, people, it's not hard.
I then ventured over to Seton Hill and St. Vincent's wiki articles. They're both pretty short, but still have a fairly good amount of information for schools of their size because, let's face it, we're not at Harvard.
Both articles start with the history of the schools, which were boring, so I didn't read them. Seton Hill's page then list all those random campus programs we have, plus grad programs, and notable alumni. St. Vincent had only two sections, Traditions and Notable alumni. Seeing as that was boring as all heck (But hey! That's a nice basilica, St. V), I went to the discussion and edit pages to see if there had been any drama lately.
Seton Hill's discussion page had a whole one discussion going on, where some anon complains about a misattributed quotation. Apparently no one cared enough to reply. There hadn't been many interesting edits lately, either. I guess we're not even interesting enough to vandalize.
The only talking going on over at St. Vincent was by what appeared to be a bot who took down an image that violated some fair use laws. I find the idea that Wikipedia has computer programs that can make simple changes by themselves kinda cool. I have no idea how advanced these things are (probably not very).
Most of the changes on the history page were minor, and the only thing worth mentioning was a reversion with the note "Wikipedia is not the news." I compared the new and old versions to see what was so offensive, and found a little note about a recently won football game. God forbid.
My goodness, that was boring. It's time for a break.
Trackback
Recent Comments
Leave a comment