Is the Wikipedia.org website a JOKE?

[TVFactFan]

Someone tried to used this site to support an argument and after I read what it had posted about an actor it was SO INACCURATE. How long has this JOKE of a Site Wikipedia been in existence?

[KristinHerreraFan]

Wikipedia is not a good source, because anybody can edit it.

[TVFactFan]

Wikipedia is not a good source, because anybody can edit it.


That's what I thought-lol I can't believe someone used that STUPID site as a reference to debate a TV issue. That site should be removed

[KristinHerreraFan]

They also deny TRUE info too. Like when I try and change the cast for Zoey 101, Alexa Nikolas as Nicole Bristow (Seasons 1-2) they always change it back and tell me they will ban my I.P. if i submit that again, well they can STUFF IT, because Alexa Nikolas is NOT in season 3 of Zoey 101, just wait till season 3 premieres and the wikipedia staff looks like idiots.

[Courtnee]

They also deny TRUE info too. Like when I try and change the cast for Zoey 101, Alexa Nikolas as Nicole Bristow (Seasons 1-2) they always change it back and tell me they will ban my I.P. if i submit that again, well they can STUFF IT, because Alexa Nikolas is NOT in season 3 of Zoey 101, just wait till season 3 premieres and the wikipedia staff looks like idiots.
that's gae. Wikipedia sucks ass.

[Brian Damage]

Look at their spinoff list and that will tell you all you need to know about it.

[TVFactFan]

Look at their spinoff list and that will tell you all you need to know about it.



If they have Good Times as a Spinoff then the site is defntely a Joke

[Brian Damage]

If they have Good Times as a Spinoff then the site is defntely a Joke

LOL I guess Norman Lear is a joke too?

[Superstar]

I go there alot but I know about 99.9999% of it is false.

[Stuck In The '70's]

It reminds me a lot of TV Tome. They let anybody edit those pages. Some pages are good and some are inacurate.

[TVFactFan]

It reminds me a lot of TV Tome. They let anybody edit those pages. Some pages are good and some are inacurate.


So you mean to tell me I was taking those eps NOTES on TVtome.com seriously the entire year of 2003 and it was all bullsh*T?-LOL

[Stuck In The '70's]

So you mean to tell me I was taking those eps NOTES on TVtome.com seriously the entire year of 2003 and it was all bullsh*T?-LOL
I saw an awful lot of mistakes over there on some guides. You have to double check everything on the internet I guess. :lol:

[Brian Damage]

So you mean to tell me I was taking those eps NOTES on TVtome.com seriously the entire year of 2003 and it was all bullsh*T?-LOL

Not all of it was BS, but some of it was waaay out there.

[Stuck In The '70's]

Not all of it was BS, but some of it was waaay out there.
It think a lot of that was because some editors over there were in charge of 10 or more guides. It's hard to keep track when you edit so many. It still is 100% better then TV.Com though. :lol:

[TVFactFan]

It think a lot of that was because some editors over there were in charge of 10 or more guides. It's hard to keep track when you edit so many. It still is 100% better then TV.Com though. :lol:


And I don't believe that fake story about Esther Rolle either on Wikipedia.org. It was ome crap on their about how she didn't like the Carl character. I was like whatever-lol

[Brian Damage]

And I don't believe that fake story about Esther Rolle either on Wikipedia.org. It was ome crap on their about how she didn't like the Carl character. I was like whatever-lol

She didn't like the Carl character. She didn't want another man so soon after the James character died.

[TVFactFan]

She didn't like the Carl character. She didn't want another man so soon after the James character died.



I need the Book, Magazine, Newspaper, or TV Interview with her saying that not some Website-lol

[Brian Damage]

As soon as I saw that they listed the King of Queens as a spinoff to Everybody Loves Raymond, I closed the site down from my computer. lol

[TVFactFan]

As soon as I saw that they listed the King of Queens as a spinoff to Everybody Loves Raymond, I closed the site down from my computer. lol


Those shows just crossed over-lol People always confuse spinoffs with crossovers

[troopoleon8897]

As soon as I saw that they listed the King of Queens as a spinoff to Everybody Loves Raymond, I closed the site down from my computer. lol

Then your glad you didn't watch the world series of Pop Culture...

[Brian Damage]

Then your glad you didn't watch the world series of Pop Culture...

What is that?

[Sharop]

I like Wikipedia.

I've actually got an account there, and I created some episode synopses for episodes of Frasier. The episode titles I created pages for are:

Someone to Watch Over Me (Season Two)

Travels With Martin (Season One)

The Botched Language of the Cranes (Season Two)

[AllIWantIsYourClutch]

When I was doing something for my english class last year, I looked up Abe Lincoln and it had this crap about how Lincoln could run 4 miles in 30 seconds and how he was a flamethrower and a bunch of other weird stuff.

Then there's this awesome story.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5996542.html

[Central Perk]

Wikipedia may have some errors, but honestly it's the best site for collective information on a variety of topics. It's like a one-stop place for any type of information, imo. I love it.

[troopoleon8897]

What is that?

The Category was spinoffs and they gave you the spinoff and you had to name the show it came from...

They said TKOQ so the first person said nothing they said incorrect and then the second person said ELR and they said correct, I was like what the F***!

[Steve M.]

Wikipedia is not a good source, because anybody can edit it.


I'm a Wikipedian, and everything I write on it is accurate to the letter! If something I think is correct isn't, I go back in and fix it! So. . . THERE! :p

[TheGreatPretender]

Uncyclopedia is WAY more accurate.

[Seth]

If you find something in an article you know is wrong, rather than coming here to complain about it, stop and fix it yourowndamself. -LOL.

[TVFactFan]

If you find something in an article you know is wrong, rather than coming here to complain about it, stop and fix it yourowndamself. -LOL.


I never go there, i posted this because someone told me they found some info on wikipedia and i was like HUH?? I call that site-"Inacurratepedia"

[Seth]

I never go there, i posted this because someone told me they found some info on wikipedia and i was like HUH?? I call that site-"Inacurratepedia"

If you never go there, how do you know how inaccurate it really IS, eh? From my experience, television-related articles are easily the one facet of Wiki that's unreliable. The rest of the articles on the site - and there's a lot - usually have some clue what they're talking about.

[TVFactFan]

If you never go there, how do you know how inaccurate it really IS, eh? From my experience, television-related articles are easily the one facet of Wiki that's unreliable. The rest of the articles on the site - and there's a lot - usually have some clue what they're talking about.t


I went there once and read something about esther rolle that just didn't sound right

[Seth]

I went there once and read something about esther rolle that just didn't sound right

Any one of a number of things is possible. Two immediately jump to mind.
1)IT was a true fact that you simply didn't know before
2)It was an incorrect fact that some idiot who just didn't know better edited in. (In this case, it's probably been long-removed. There are SOME of us who try to keep Wiki factual)

[Lamont]

And I don't believe that fake story about Esther Rolle either on Wikipedia.org. It was ome crap on their about how she didn't like the Carl character. I was like whatever-lol

NOONE liked the CARL character on GOOD TIMES
he was OVERWHELMINGLY disliked by the fans!

BUT to the subject a LOT of those online sites are wrong

tv.com has episode guides ALL THE TIME that are all messed up!

[TVFactFan]

NOer erONE liked the CARL character on GOOD TIMES
he was OVERWHELMINGLY disliked by the fans!

BUT to the subject a LOT of those online sites are wrong

tv.com has episode guides ALL THE TIME that are all messed up!


that's why i no longer follow tv.com

[KristinHerreraFan]

Give me IMDb over tv.com/wikipedia anyday. They seem to always have the most accurate information.

[Stuck In The '70's]

Give me IMDb over tv.com/wikipedia anyday. They seem to always have the most accurate information.
I've seen a lot of mistakes over there too.

[Seth]

Give me IMDb over tv.com/wikipedia anyday. They seem to always have the most accurate information.

IMDB accurate? Yeah. Sure. And pigs have wings

[Brent88]

I use Wikipedia a lot, but rarely for TV research(usually only local affiliates or a national cable network if I do). Articles on pretty much anything else are usually awesome, and usually if there's incorrect info or someone vandalizes an article, it's caught within a few minutes.

[Brent88]

IMDB accurate? Yeah. Sure. And pigs have wings

:rofl:

[JNSBSB]

I'd say that 3/4 of all things out there on the internet is inaccurate. And what's funny, even the magazines and newspapers are inaccurate, too. You thing the newspapers and magazines always print the truth? 1/2 the time, it's only someone's oppinion. And celebrity mags and articles are most likely to be printed up and twisted up by the reporters, anyways. Even the interviewers of certain magazines tends to twist the facts around and put in false stuff here and there to make the biography more interesting to the readers after the interviewer has interviewed the person.

Me, I never trust the IMDB, TV.Com, Magazines, Newspapers, or the media. I don't even trust pamplets. They always twist it all.

[Sharop]

Someone check out my contributions to Wikipedia and tell me what you think. :) I know they're accurate, because I wrote synopses for some of my favourite episodes of Frasier, which I've seen many times.

All you have to do is find Frasier on Wikipedia, click on the Episode List, and then click on the episodes Travels With Martin, The Botched Language of the Cranes and Someone to Watch Over Me.

[Steve M.]

NOONE liked the CARL character on GOOD TIMES
he was OVERWHELMINGLY disliked by the fans!!

Noone liked the Carl character becasue the fans disliked him? That's why Peter Noone liked him? Well, no one ever liked the lead singer of Herman's Hermits either! :rofl:

Unless you met "no one," and put those two words together to create the last name of the guy who sang "I'm Henry VIII, I Am." ;)

[JT]

I hate it when people rag on Wikipedia. If you come across something that you are so sure is inaccurate, then stop complaining about it and CHANGE IT YOURSELF. That's the point of letting everyone edit it.

And for the record, I've rarely come across anything personally on the site that is incredibly inaccurate, TV-related or otherwise. The pages for soaps there are amazing.

[Sharop]

Noone liked the Carl character becasue the fans disliked him? That's why Peter Noone liked him? Well, no one ever liked the lead singer of Herman's Hermits either! :rofl:

Hey, a little bit of trivia here - the parents of Peter Noone used to be friends with the parents of the Bee Gees (Barry, Robin and Maurice Gibb) when both families lived in Manchester, in England. In August 1958, the Gibb family emigrated to Australia (Barry being 11, Robin and Maurice being 8 and their baby brother Andy being 5 months old) and didn't come back to England until January 1967, which was the year they became famous.

[Jonathan]

I still miss TV Tome. :( I loved it as a resource.

[dawsongirl]

IMDB accurate? Yeah. Sure. And pigs have wings
lol...no kidding. I've edited a lot of things, and like that thing with wiki not wanted to add Zoey 101 stuff, imdb didn't want to add emmy info I knew was correct. :censored:

[Sharop]

The Wikipedia pages for Cheers, Frasier, Arrested Development and the Bee Gees are very good, though.

[Dragonflies]

Give me IMDb over tv.com/wikipedia anyday. They seem to always have the most accurate information.

Actually IMDb is the worst when it comes to accurate information

[TVFactFan]

Actually IMDb is the worst when it comes to accurate information


Not to me, I find imdb.com to be more helpful than tv.com

[James"Thunder"Early]

It's accurate for the most part

[JT]

The Wikipedia pages for Cheers, Frasier, Arrested Development and the Bee Gees are very good, though.
Honestly, most of the TV pages I go to are pretty accurate. If I find something that I know is 100% not true, I simply go and change it.

I've actually created several pages there and completely overhauled one of them.

[Stuck In The '70's]

Not to me, I find imdb.com to be more helpful than tv.com
I wouldn't know since I rarely use TV.Com anymore. :lol:

[TVFactFan]

I wouldn't know since I rarely use TV.Com anymore. :lol:


TV.com doesn't have a Guest Star section for each TV Show like it was on Tvtome.com. That's one of the main reasons why I don't like it

[robyrob]

actually the Wikipedia article on Solomon is quite entertaining and informative :grineyes:

[TVFactFan]

actually the Wikipedia article on Solomon is quite entertaining and informative :grineyes:


Rob you have defintely earned the name Wackball-lol You are Wild-lol

[Brad]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060804/ap_on_hi_te/wikimania;_ylt=AgyxwH_1kZFipeu5Hm5zrhOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-

Wikipedia founder seeks more quality

By Brian Bergstein
The Associated Press

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - The founder of Wikipedia on Friday urged contributors to the free Internet encyclopedia to put more emphasis on quality instead of quantity.

With more than 1.2 million articles in English alone, Wikipedia already has met its goal of becoming a comprehensive encyclopedia, founder Jimmy Wales told more than 300 people at the start of "Wikimania," a three-day gathering of people devoted to Wikipedia and other community Web projects.

But even while Wikipedia's vast scope exceeds that of traditional encyclopedias, Wales said Wikipedia would become even more valuable if entries were written less choppily, for example, or better identified their sources.

Like many Wikipedia defenders, Wales cited the recent study in the journal Nature finding that Wikipedia had only slightly more errors than the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica. But Wales added that his online project "got lucky" in that comparison because the Nature authors only looked at science articles, a field in which Wikipedia's geek-heavy community shines.

"Although we've always had this goal that we should be Britannica- or better quality, we all know we're not there yet," he said. "We can no longer feel satisfied and happy when we see these (article) numbers going up. ... We should continue to turn our attention away from growth and towards quality."

Wikis are software programs that foster collaboration and openness — anyone may add, edit and even delete entries, regardless of expertise in a given subject.

Since its launch in 2001, Wikipedia has become a gigantic presence on the Web and expanded into dozens of other languages.

Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that supports the sites, now also back a wiki dictionary, wiki course materials for schools, a wiki collection of famous quotations and a wiki for biological taxonomy. Wales also has gotten venture funding for Wikia Inc., a for-profit wiki-creating company, and wants to see wikis for political campaigns, in hopes of improving the discourse.

Wales, who turns 40 on Monday, said a few improvements coming to Wikipedia will help improve its quality.

An editing tool called "Wikiwyg" — "wyg" stands for "what you get" — should make it easier to change articles. As of now, readers who click "edit this page" on a Wikipedia entry are confronted with a bit of programming code that Wales admits can scare off less technologically savvy users, denying Wikipedia their expertise.

Wales also is encouraging the community to allow fewer unsourced claims in biographies of living people. Perhaps this issue more than any other has made Wikipedia controversial, especially after it was revealed last year that for four months the entry on journalist John Seigenthaler erroneously named him as a suspect in the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy.

"We have a really serious responsibility to get things right," Wales said.

The remainder of Wikimania, which was held at Harvard Law School, included discussions and workshops on everything from validating information on Wikipedia to how the project fits into broader efforts in open-source, "free culture."

It also figured to be in large part a social affair, as "Wikipedians" from all over finally got to meet face to face. Badges given to attendees had both their real names and the "screen names" they use in Wikipedia forums.

Among them was Josh Boswell, 17, a high school senior from Wellesley, Mass., who got hooked on Wikipedia last year after expanding an article on Saul Bellow's "Henderson the Rain King," which he had been reading for class.

"I guess I wanted to see," Boswell said, "what this whole international community looked like."

[TVFactFan]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060804/ap_on_hi_te/wikimania;_ylt=AgyxwH_1kZFipeu5Hm5zrhOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-

Wikipedia founder seeks more quality

By Brian Bergstein
The Associated Press

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - The founder of Wikipedia on Friday urged contributors to the free Internet encyclopedia to put more emphasis on quality instead of quantity.

With more than 1.2 million articles in English alone, Wikipedia already has met its goal of becoming a comprehensive encyclopedia, founder Jimmy Wales told more than 300 people at the start of "Wikimania," a three-day gathering of people devoted to Wikipedia and other community Web projects.

But even while Wikipedia's vast scope exceeds that of traditional encyclopedias, Wales said Wikipedia would become even more valuable if entries were written less choppily, for example, or better identified their sources.

Like many Wikipedia defenders, Wales cited the recent study in the journal Nature finding that Wikipedia had only slightly more errors than the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica. But Wales added that his online project "got lucky" in that comparison because the Nature authors only looked at science articles, a field in which Wikipedia's geek-heavy community shines.

"Although we've always had this goal that we should be Britannica- or better quality, we all know we're not there yet," he said. "We can no longer feel satisfied and happy when we see these (article) numbers going up. ... We should continue to turn our attention away from growth and towards quality."

Wikis are software programs that foster collaboration and openness — anyone may add, edit and even delete entries, regardless of expertise in a given subject.

Since its launch in 2001, Wikipedia has become a gigantic presence on the Web and expanded into dozens of other languages.

Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that supports the sites, now also back a wiki dictionary, wiki course materials for schools, a wiki collection of famous quotations and a wiki for biological taxonomy. Wales also has gotten venture funding for Wikia Inc., a for-profit wiki-creating company, and wants to see wikis for political campaigns, in hopes of improving the discourse.

Wales, who turns 40 on Monday, said a few improvements coming to Wikipedia will help improve its quality.

An editing tool called "Wikiwyg" — "wyg" stands for "what you get" — should make it easier to change articles. As of now, readers who click "edit this page" on a Wikipedia entry are confronted with a bit of programming code that Wales admits can scare off less technologically savvy users, denying Wikipedia their expertise.

Wales also is encouraging the community to allow fewer unsourced claims in biographies of living people. Perhaps this issue more than any other has made Wikipedia controversial, especially after it was revealed last year that for four months the entry on journalist John Seigenthaler erroneously named him as a suspect in the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy.

"We have a really serious responsibility to get things right," Wales said.

The remainder of Wikimania, which was held at Harvard Law School, included discussions and workshops on everything from validating information on Wikipedia to how the project fits into broader efforts in open-source, "free culture."

It also figured to be in large part a social affair, as "Wikipedians" from all over finally got to meet face to face. Badges given to attendees had both their real names and the "screen names" they use in Wikipedia forums.

Among them was Josh Boswell, 17, a high school senior from Wellesley, Mass., who got hooked on Wikipedia last year after expanding an article on Saul Bellow's "Henderson the Rain King," which he had been reading for class.

"I guess I wanted to see," Boswell said, "what this whole international community looked like."



That's my issue with the site, the fact that no sources are listed for that information that is provided which is why I consider the site a Joke

[Dragonflies]

Not to me, I find imdb.com to be more helpful than tv.com

I do too somewhat, BUT IMDb has too much inaccurate information to have to wade through to get to the correct information.

[TVFactFan]

I do too somewhat, BUT IMDb has too much inaccurate information to have to wade through to get to the correct information.


But tv.com no longer has guest star info

[troopoleon8897]

But tv.com no longer has guest star info

I don't know what show your looking at but all the shows I search on Tv.com have guest star info unlike IMDB wich has none at all...

[TVFactFan]

I don't know what show your looking at but all the shows I search on Tv.com have guest star info unlike IMDB wich has none at all...


There used to be a section on tvtome.com that allowed you to click on CAST for each show and once you did that you also saw all the actors/actresses that appeared on the show during it's run. That feature is not on Tv.com

[troopoleon8897]

There used to be a section on tvtome.com that allowed you to click on CAST for each show and once you did that you also saw all the actors/actresses that appeared on the show during it's run. That feature is not on Tv.com

yeah but they still list all recurring characters, plus you can get guest star info per episode...

[Stuck In The '70's]

It takes to long to get to all that on TV.Com. You used to be able to get everything you wanted on one page.

[troopoleon8897]

It takes to long to get to all that on TV.Com. You used to be able to get everything you wanted on one page.

Thats True but Its still better than IMDB because they don't list guest stars at all...

[TVFactFan]

Thats True but Its still better than IMDB because they don't list guest stars at all...


You can get Guest star info on Imdb.com by puting the actor's name inside the search box

[troopoleon8897]

You can get Guest star info on Imdb.com by puting the actor's name inside the search box

yeah but if you wanna figure out a guest star that was oin a show for a couple episodes and you don't know their name there is no way to find out


plus they don't have listed recurring characters