PDA

View Full Version : Disneyland Wikipedia Article



pixarfan33
04-18-2007, 06:33 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland

The wikipedia article has a bit of a prank in it...hopefully its a prank.

Scroll down a little bit and you'll see it.

Bytebear
04-18-2007, 06:42 PM
Wikipedia is constantly being updated. If you are familiar with it, maybe you can link to the "diff" page- or at least give a hint as to what we are looking for.

I think I found the version you found. It has already been fixed, but here is a link to the prank:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disneyland&oldid=123958528

pixarfan33
04-18-2007, 06:43 PM
It is big capital letters that say

BREAKING NEWS!!!

4700 PEOPLE WERE DIAGNOSED WITH EYEELASH INFINTIGO AFTER LEAVIN TEH PARK ON APRIL 15TH 2007. THOSES OF YOU WHO WERE AT THE PARK RECENTLY PLEASE CONSULT YOUR PHYSICAIN IMMEDIATLY TO GET ANTIBIOTICS OR YOU CAN RESULT IN EYE LOSS.

not hard to miss.

cstephens
04-18-2007, 06:58 PM
Yep, that's exactly why wikipedia is so incredibly reliable as a reference source.

Another Dimension
04-18-2007, 07:39 PM
GET ANTIBIOTICS OR YOU CAN RESULT IN EYE LOSS.

I've had it several times in my life. It's a bit uncomfortable when you wake up in the morning. If that....


Eye loss??
:rolleyes:

ILovePoker
04-18-2007, 10:13 PM
Yep, that's exactly why wikipedia is so incredibly reliable as a reference source.

Totally. Use it as a source for an essay and you are bound to get A++.

aricbell
04-19-2007, 02:33 PM
Someone has too much time on their hands on this one :|

futurecm21
04-19-2007, 02:50 PM
I have said it over and over again, and I will say it once more now.

If you use Wikipedia, all you have to do is check out the references or external links to verify the information! Also if you think the article is bias or contains false information you can go to the discussions page and ask that it be cleaned up or at least labled as disputed.

futurecm21

b-dof
04-19-2007, 08:18 PM
It is big capital letters that say

BREAKING NEWS!!!

4700 PEOPLE WERE DIAGNOSED WITH EYEELASH INFINTIGO AFTER LEAVIN TEH PARK ON APRIL 15TH 2007. THOSES OF YOU WHO WERE AT THE PARK RECENTLY PLEASE CONSULT YOUR PHYSICAIN IMMEDIATLY TO GET ANTIBIOTICS OR YOU CAN RESULT IN EYE LOSS.

not hard to miss.

Wait, did you mean to be sarcastic and say not EASY to miss?
genuinly unsure

Bumbershoot
04-19-2007, 10:25 PM
Wikipedia is a joke.

The Lovely Mrs. tod
04-20-2007, 06:35 AM
I have said it over and over again, and I will say it once more now.

If you use Wikipedia, all you have to do is check out the references or external links to verify the information! Also if you think the article is bias or contains false information you can go to the discussions page and ask that it be cleaned up or at least labled as disputed.

futurecm21
Why would you want to spend all that time verifying the information contained in the Wikipedia when you can use a real encyclopedia and get it right the first time?

What good is a reference book that requires one to double check all the information to see if it's accurate?

IF you can't spring for the Britannica, head for a used book store and buy a World Book. Pick it up and read it.

If you can't bring yourself to read a book, at least try the Columbia. Or the World Book concise. Both free online.

Klutch
04-20-2007, 11:37 AM
Why would you want to spend all that time verifying the information contained in the Wikipedia when you can use a real encyclopedia and get it right the first time?

What good is a reference book that requires one to double check all the information to see if it's accurate?

IF you can't spring for the Britannica, head for a used book store and buy a World Book. Pick it up and read it.

If you can't bring yourself to read a book, at least try the Columbia. Or the World Book concise. Both free online.

I see your point, Mrs. tod. I do, however, find Wikipedia helpful and I find traditional encyclopedias to be very "sterile" and a bit stuffy. If I'm searching information sources for a research paper, Britannica is certainly a better source than Wikipedia. And no, I don't mind cracking a book. In fact, I prefer good old paper bound information. :)

If I want to know what a Foo Fighter is, Wikipedia will have a very good summary with multiple links to related topics, including "questionable" topics like UFOs, and witness accounts. The info in Britannica may be similar, but likely a Reader's Digest version. And, I wonder if Britannica would have articles about Sid Vicious, Johnny Rotten or The Dead Kennedys. :confused:

Bytebear
04-20-2007, 12:58 PM
I find Wikipedia quite useful, and I find that I read the talk pages more than the articles. There are many checks and balances and when an article makes "good" status, it really is a comprehensive and complete article. How long it remains in that state is debatable. I tend to find information on Wikipedia, particularly external links, that I would never find anywhere else. Nearly all the Disney park related articles are still in their infantcy, which means the information is sparse or not referrenced, but not necessarily inaccurate. You will never find a regular encyclopedia with information about Country Bear Jamboree, for example.

cstephens
04-20-2007, 02:40 PM
You will never find a regular encyclopedia with information about Country Bear Jamboree, for example.

True, but at least the regular encyclopedia doesn't have wrong information about CBJ. I'm not sure how good or helpful a source is when you don't know what's right and what's wrong. "There's lots of really good information here, but there's also some really wrong stuff too. You just have to figure out which is which." :rolleyes:

futurecm21
04-20-2007, 03:23 PM
Why would you want to spend all that time verifying the information contained in the Wikipedia when you can use a real encyclopedia and get it right the first time?

Wikipedia is a one stop shop, its the Wal Mart of encyclopedias.

All I have to do is go there, read the information, put it in my notes, and then quickly check its sources and links for other information and to confirm the info is legit. In the end it really takes allot less time for me. I don't have to google Disneyland, and hope I get the information I need, and I actually get information as opposed to Britannica or World Book which have little to now information on Disneyland.

futurecm21

Bytebear
04-20-2007, 05:34 PM
True, but at least the regular encyclopedia doesn't have wrong information about CBJ. I'm not sure how good or helpful a source is when you don't know what's right and what's wrong. "There's lots of really good information here, but there's also some really wrong stuff too. You just have to figure out which is which." :rolleyes:

And when you do, you update the page. Then it is accurate for the next person. That's its strength.

The Lovely Mrs. tod
04-21-2007, 10:15 AM
Wikipedia is a one stop shop, its the Wal Mart of encyclopedias.
That's actually nothing to recommend them, you know...;)

futurecm21
04-21-2007, 11:07 AM
That's actually nothing to recommend them, you know...;)

Hehe, yeah, I just realized that.

How about the Target of encyclopedias?

:)

futurecm21

cstephens
04-21-2007, 11:11 AM
Call it what you want. I just can't understand how a reference source could be considered remotely useful when you can't tell what's accurate and what's not. Sure, some reference books might have mistakes, but you rely on the fact that if it's a reputable book, they've done their fact checking, so if there's a mistake, it slipped through. But to just have random people say things as "truth" when there's no requirement for any kind of credibility? They recently had a story about someone who had been contributing a lot to the site who claimed to be a professor and expert on this and that and it turned out he was just some 20-something year old kid or something like that making stuff up.

Yeah, really useful in my book.