Latest on MJJC

The top 10 most edited pages on WIKIPEDIA- ... Michael Jackson ....

ILoveHIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
778
Points
0
Former US president George W Bush may no longer be able to change the course of history but it has not stopped others trying for him.

To mark its 15th anniversary today, online encyclopedia Wikipedia released a ranking of its pages based on how many edits have been made by volunteers edits can mount at Wikipedia pages when people or subjects incite passion or rival perspectives.

Bush, in office from 2001 to 2009, topped the list with 45,862 edits to his Wikipedia page, coming in about 3,000 edits ahead of the World Wrestling Entertainment roster page.

The list of the top-10 most edited pages went on to include, in order, the United States, Wikipedia itself, Michael Jackson, Jesus and the Catholic Church.

Top-10 most edited pages: George W. Bush, United States, Wikipedia itself, Michael Jackson, Jesus and the Catholic Church.

Rounding out the list were programs broadcast by Philippines television network ABS-CBN, US President Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler.

Since its launch on January 15, 2001, Wikipedia has grown to more than 36 million articles, with approximately 80,000 volunteer editors contributing to the website, according to the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation behind it.

Separately, Pew Research Center released a study detailing which subjects are most popular on Wikipedia in different languages.

The most visited article in the English version of Wikipedia was "List of deaths by year," which racked up more than 20.8 million page views last year alone, the research showed.

The most popular Chinese-language articles included the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, mention of which is strictly taboo in China and heavily censored.

The top four Japanese language Wikipedia pages were devoted to pop groups, and the fifth was an article about organized crime group Yamaguchi-gumi.

Volleyball, basketball and football, along with Wikipedia itself and the periodic table of elements, were among the most popular articles in Spanish.

"Wikipedia seemed like an impossible idea at the time: an online encyclopedia that everyone can edit," founder Jimmy Wales said.

"However, it has surpassed everyone's expectations over the past 15 years, thanks to the hundreds of thousands of volunteers around the world who have made Wikipedia possible."

Wikipedia has expanded to include 280 languages and averages more than 18 billion page views monthly, making it one of the world's most visited websites, according to Pew.

http://www.firstpost.com/world/from...0-most-edited-pages-on-wikipedia-2585540.html
 
I hate Wikipedia. The MJ article has been hijacked by haters (especially about the allegations) and a lot of the info they put on there is twisted, out of context and deceptive (and deliberately so). But then Wikipedia is far from being a reliable source. When people know that it's OK, but unfortunately some people think it's some reliable encyclopedia when it is not at all.
 
I hate Wikipedia for the simple fact that after someone dies it really hits home to go on the wikipedia page and see "Joe Bloggs WAS an entertainer......" for the first time.

Wiki is only good if you want the gist about someone or something. Then you go for the facts.
 
innuendo141 said:
I hate Wikipedia for the simple fact that after someone dies it really hits home to go on the wikipedia page and see "Joe Bloggs WAS an entertainer......" for the first time.

Wiki is only good if you want the gist about someone or something. Then you go for the facts.
Click to expand...

I also read statistics that shows that Wikipedia editors mostly belong to one demographics (young, University age, white, upper-middle class men) and there is a certain bias that can be detected because of that.

Also, my personal experience with Wikipedia is, that when I objected about one particular claim about MJ I was told by an editor: "The things put on Wikipedia do not have to be true, they just have to be verifiable." - along these lines. "Verifiable" at Wikipedia means you just have to provide a source for it and then you can put it in the article. And we know how much crap was written about MJ in books and articles so of course you can provide a source for any nonsense about him. And so it can be on Wikipedia as if it is some fact. Haters do take a lot of advantage of that policy.

So yeah, like you said, it may be a source for basic data about someone, but for a full factual biography I would not trust it about anyone.

That MJ's is one of the most edited articles is not a positive thing either. It just shows he is controversial to people and there is a lot of editing and re-editing going on in his article, haters fighting to dictate the narrative about him and so on.
 
respect77 said:
I hate Wikipedia. The MJ article has been hijacked by haters (especially about the allegations) and a lot of the info they put on there is twisted, out of context and deceptive (and deliberately so). But then Wikipedia is far from being a reliable source. When people know that it's OK, but unfortunately some people think it's some reliable encyclopedia when it is not at all.
Click to expand...

and maybe for that reason it is very important to take some actions towards the official admins of WIKI, post them complaints, or just try to edit the MJ wiki page with the most reliable sources possible (official docs and statements....) - with external links that could not be questioned, and deleted.

Any way..., its not only MJ as a victim of twisting this virtual world by anonymous editors.
 
ILoveHIStory said:
and maybe for that reason it is very important to take some actions towards the official admins of WIKI, post them complaints, or just try to edit the MJ wiki page with the most reliable sources possible (official docs and statements....) - with external links that could not be questioned, and deleted.
Click to expand...

Well, I have seen big talk about what MJ fans should or should not do to prevent this, but when it comes to actual action and actual work needs to be put into it (and not just telling other fans what they should do) most fans disappear and there are only very few left willing to put their time and energy and work into it. Talking from experience. Also I will ceratinly not get into a tedious back and forth with haters all the time I want to edit something. And unfortunately they outnumber fans at Wikipedia, because there are very few fans when it comes to these things. Most fans just like to stay away from the drama and I can understand that. I do not interact with haters myself. It's toxic. Especially when you are almost alone and hardly have any supporters from other fans like haters support each other.
 
I'm generally a fan of Wikipedia and use it probably every day. (When I was a kid I was just as fascinated with our official encyclopedias-read them constantly).

Michael's page is locked so only verified members can edit it and everything has to be corroborated by a verified source. But there's a lot of information in his bio that is written and twisted in a derogatory way. And maddeningly they allow tabloids as a verified source.
(Although once I read a fight among editors about using TMZ).

I thought seriously about joining Wikipedia just to assist with his page, but reading the two years of edits put me off. If I were to do something like this, I'd want to have files of actual court transcripts and depositions etc.

They have a committee for his page and they argue about the most ridiculous things like whether he sang soul or not.
And whether to list his siblings or not.
I would say that it would be a full time job. Although some people who write blogs might consider that job.

I have to say I look at it at least once a week and the back and forth edits are constant.
 
Wikipedia is just one source of information, not an authoritative one. I explain that all the time to library users and many do know that Wikipedia alone is not enough for whatever they're researching.
 
dewey said:
Wikipedia is just one source of information, not an authoritative one. I explain that all the time to library users and many do know that Wikipedia alone is not enough for whatever they're researching.
Click to expand...
Dewey, you're a librarian so you're perfect to ask. Isn't the old encyclopedia Britannia also considered just a single source-that's why they also listed further reading, references and research. I know I used those all the time like I now do with Wikipedia.
 
I have never been to wikipedia... nor do I wish to refer to it.... EVER...
I KNOW MY MJ FACTS..
I dont need a fake encyclopedia telling me otherwise...
 
barbee, I wasn't aware that Britannica had references. I do know that World Book refers to further reading of its own articles within the encyclopedia. For me, any encyclopedia is a source for general knowledge on or a review for a subject, but there are other sources to corroborate or refute what's in them... it's a general rule of thumb that if the same information is found in three separate, reliable sources, it's probably true.

But, not pertaining to Michael unfortunately. I still have a hard time finding good info about Mike to share with people. And they do come in occasionally asking for stuff about him for reports. Still no unbiased children's bios and well, you know what the adult books are like. There are some sources in databases that are fairly good. But I ramble... Wikipedia is simply a starting point.
 
^^thanks, Dewey. Probably is World Book I'm thinking of-what is the white and green ones that all families used to have and the guy sold them door to door?
You're decades too young for that. :)
All I remember is lying on the floor reading them with about 10 volumes around me at all times.

I would love to join Wikipedia just so I could "fix" Michael's page, but the discussion board on it is outrageous.
 
I'm probably older than you think. :laugh:

I remember using a 1968 Encyclopedia Britannica set when doing homework in the late 70s, my Dad bought it from a door-to-door salesman. I wouldn't recommend buying a print encyclopedia set today, however. It's really easy to have up to date, free information with school and library resources, and the Internet, of course.
 
dewey said:
I'm probably older than you think. :laugh:

I remember using a 1968 Encyclopedia Britannica set when doing homework in the late 70s, my Dad bought it from a door-to-door salesman. I wouldn't recommend buying a print encyclopedia set today, however. It's really easy to have up to date, free information with school and library resources, and the Internet, of course.
Click to expand...
haha. I kinda cried when I donated our set about 15 years ago but that was bc they were so outdated and the internet was becoming pervasive. I even got a computer for home. Lol.
But I miss them. We had a set written specifically for little kids before that.
 
I would love to join Wikipedia just so I could "fix" Michael's page, but the discussion board on it is outrageous.
Click to expand...

I had no idea there was a discussion board for Michel's entry. It's very, very tempting for me to join, too, but I wouldn't want the battles over it, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top