Wikipedia.org

[sgrizzle]

Is anyone else addicted to it?

You can look up tv shows, movies, politicians, just about anything. Plus everything is cross referenced a-la 6 degrees of kevin bacon..

Then if you start contributing as well, there might be no more free time in the day..

Or maybe it's just me.

Tulsa on Wikipedia

[sportyart]

Tulsa becomes a featured article. Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. Before being listed here, articles are reviewed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our featured article criteria.

At present, there are 1,412 featured articles, of a total of 1,806,140 articles on Wikipedia. Thus, about one in 1,270 articles is listed here. Articles that no longer meet the criteria can be proposed for improvement or removal at Wikipedia:Featured article review.

A small bronze star () on the top right corner of an article's page indicates that the article is featured.

At present, no city in our area (Dallas, Ft. Worth, Oklahoma City, Little Rock, Kansas City, St. Louis and so on) is a featured article.

[inteller]

featured articles are a popularity contest....so if you have enough pull with the Wikilluminati you can get an article featured.  it is a scratch my back I scratch yours scenario.

I don't consider tulsa being featured anything special.  I consider someone went on a lobbying campaign and we arrived to this result.

if you want good clean unbiased information, consult a library, there is way too much crap in wikipedia to trust the results.

i've seen grad students cite wikipedia.  doing so gets them automatic Fs.

[pmcalk]

One thing the article fails to mention--it discusses the BOK tower being the tallest in the region, but fails to mention the architect, Yamasaki, the same architect who designed the world trade center towers.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

featured articles are a popularity contest....so if you have enough pull with the Wikilluminati you can get an article featured.  it is a scratch my back I scratch yours scenario.

I don't consider tulsa being featured anything special.  I consider someone went on a lobbying campaign and we arrived to this result.

if you want good clean unbiased information, consult a library, there is way too much crap in wikipedia to trust the results.

i've seen grad students cite wikipedia.  doing so gets them automatic Fs.

But does the Grad student have a car with the aerodynamics to go 130 miles per hour with no loss in gas mileage?[]

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Is anyone else addicted to it?

You can look up tv shows, movies, politicians, just about anything. Plus everything is cross referenced a-la 6 degrees of kevin bacon..

Then if you start contributing as well, there might be no more free time in the day..

Or maybe it's just me.

Tulsa on Wikipedia

I could probably contribute plenty as informed by my fields of expertise and experiences, but I wonder if I'd have the time?

[Conan71]

Wikipedia is a good starting place for quick reference but it's not Gospel.  From there, you pretty much have to dig deeper to get all the facts.

[RecycleMichael]

I thought "internet" was Latin for "truth".

[Lister]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

One thing the article fails to mention--it discusses the BOK tower being the tallest in the region, but fails to mention the architect, Yamasaki, the same architect who designed the world trade center towers.

Somebody on here must've heard you PM..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Oklahoma_Tower

[grahambino]

sure, wikipedia cannot be completely trusted 100% of the time.  though on certain subjects you really cant help but trust it.  such as the melting point of sulfur.  There are enough people that read and edit wiki that things like that it will get corrected.  Another example would be when i look up a TV show or a band im interested in.  i really dont have any reason to doubt when or where serj tankian was born and if it is wrong, well, i can live with the fact that im misinformed on such a subject.

I love wikipedia, its definitely a time-sink for someone who used to read encyclopedias for fun as a child.

[cannon_fodder]

well put Garhambino - I'm a big fan of Wikipedia and they seem to do a good job of pointing out controversial points or other points of view.  Perfect, no.  And I certainly would not rely on it for scholarly work nor if it really mattered (ie. my son just ate 12 aspirin, what should I do?).

However, when I wanted a brief history of the Lebanese Civil War or to find out what the city of X is like. - it works great.