Nickname: Rita

Review: Hi,I think wiki is a good thing. somebody is always abusing the internet.I think it's about time somebody is trying to do something about it.Myself i think children should be protected by mean people.Kids needs to be watched by there parent's should know who there kids are talking to,and make sure there is nothing wrong with who there kids are contacting on the computer.They are a lot of nasty people on the computer.And letting kids buy porn is that crazy or what,Thats is what wrong with this world they are no respect.It's not only the computer is the world.

Date reviewed: Aug 29, 2008 3:19 AM

Nickname: tinkerbell

Review: Hi I think wiki is good, I also believe that no matter what web site it is there will always be someone abusing the system. It will take time to stop the fraud that goes on. I am happy to read that it is being worked on. I also believe the internet is supposed to be used for educational learning as well as being updated in what it going on with all the different companies all over the world. It will take time to clean up the web sites. Children should be protected from people that are not so nice. Parents need to watch their children more when they are on-line. I also believe that userâ??s should check out the sources before using it for any research. Before anyone writes any blogs, we all need to be careful in what we write about other people, because it can be very hurtful and it is mean and very destructive. I think there should be a law for people writing nasty things about someone else on the internet. It should not be allowed. Before anyone writes about someone on line, it should be the truth and they should have facts to back up what they are saying.

Date reviewed: May 23, 2008 3:09 AM

Nickname: Boggie

Review: The problem with wikipedia is not that people are destructive liars, but that as a whole we are poorly educated. If we invested more in our education system and modernized it, vandalism would be no problem because people would stop it. We should solve the problem of ignorance, not destroy democratic sources of information. Otherwise, these problemss will resurface.

Date reviewed: May 2, 2007 4:43 AM

Nickname: Michael Balensiefer

Review: Is it a mistake to cite Wiki as an authoritative source? Well - if one was writing their doctorate thesis off of a single Wiki article or two, then they are obviously not writing a technical article AT ALL. But - if one was looking for a one-stop information shop, then there it is! The problem with it currently is that users CAN anonymously create new articles and edit existing entries. I propose that as users/editors establish a "point" system, similar to Yahoo's "Answer Professionals", that ne'er do-goods will stop posting BS on its obviously-abusable site. Democracy ITSELF is only several hundred years old, and has ONLY RECENTLY, in terms of human and governmental-control, been proved to be the ELITE way of handling the masses productively: similarly, I assert that Wiki, once it gets MORE editors, will be the GO-TO (not thesis material) one-stop shop for updated information, as it occurs. Until then, can anyone dispute this?

Date reviewed: Oct 26, 2006 6:55 PM

Nickname: Monster213

Review: There are always people saying that the more we give to people the more they will destroy it. I see the same critique used to deny access to people to all sorts of enjoyable or educational opportunities. People do not tend to destroy or deface or misuse things for which they feel a sense of ownership. People vandalize when they are disenfranchised - stop trying to restrict everything any time any little thing goes wrong. Don't shoot the elephant because he's got a hangnail!!

Date reviewed: Jul 28, 2006 6:28 PM

Nickname: Josiah Rowe

Review: Chaos's concern about the possibility of truth being determined by discussion and debate reflects a misunderstanding about the sort of authority Wikipedia hopes to present. Instead of saying, "This is the absolute truth, and anyone who disagrees is a fool," Wikipedia's goal (at least with regard to arguable subjects) is to say, "This is the view held by these people (a significant majority), and this is the view held by this minority, and this is a third perspective. Judge for yourself." That said, I'm more optimistic about the possibility of discovering truth via discussion: after all, it was good enough for Socrates, wasn't it?

Date reviewed: Dec 22, 2005 3:21 AM

Nickname: Ta bu shi da yu

Review: I've been noticing this "intelec" popping up everywhere. He's basically making defamatory comments. It appears that Wikipedia is not the only one with problems of people publishing defamatory material. TBSDY

Date reviewed: Dec 21, 2005 6:20 AM

Nickname: intelec

Review: Jimbo Wales partly owns Wikipedia also partly owns Bomis, a well known pornography enterprise. Perhaps Jimbo feels that it is a child's right to be exposed to any media that claims neutrality just not to cite it? Perhaps Jimbo feels parents shouldn't limit their child's online viewing of pedophilic propaganda if they want to, regardless of their age? Perhaps Jimbo feels we should at least make it legal for children to buy porn? No Jimbo, I disagree and I won't edit my opinion to say so." More on this by an anti-predator Web site Perverted-Justice.com. http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article=11 Please take note that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, and that is just one reason why parents and teachers should consider blocking the Web site. This news link http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20679 contains the original published article. (see also www.wikipedophilia.com )

Date reviewed: Dec 17, 2005 7:59 PM

Nickname: Hasan

Review: You have to understand that even scholarly articles and books are filled with all sorts of debatable and disputed facts all the time. Arrogant and cocky professors have their own points of view on things, even scientific topics. what makes professors so highly regarded? Does someone need a PhD to be an expert on something?

Date reviewed: Dec 17, 2005 1:18 AM

Nickname: Chaos

Review: I don't like the idea of finding truth through "discussion and debate" at all. After 40 years of discussion and debate no "truth" about the assassination of JFK has emerged, September 11th, Election 2000, etc., the official versions are constantly under attack (usually invalidly) and always will be. I don't like the idea at all. Finding truth through debate instead of through scientific research, I think, is more likely to produce the truth acceptable to everyone who is involved, some of them bitterly opposed to the others for whatever reason, instead of simply the truth. Would you rather have the history about the Iraq War being written by someone ostensibly neutral, or by a committee of neocons, isolationists, pacifists, Islamists, etc.? Somehow I doubt that such a committee would even be able to produce any kind of work at all, much less one that was accurate.

Date reviewed: Dec 16, 2005 12:39 AM