I am a big fan of Wikipedia. I visit it every time I have a question. Google fails to answer most of my questions because it has become very hard to go through all the spam sites that have cluttered its search results. But Wikipedia works great almost all the time.
Almost.
Source: Chunky Pandey on Wikipedia
Well Wikipedia’s basic nature attracts vandalism. Wikipedia depends on users to fix such stuff up. I occasionally find such sightings on less visited pages.
BTW, someone fixed that listing but the caption above the image still says “xxxxxx”.
Wikipedia depends on the user to fix bugs in articles (incorrect assertions here). You, the user, are not fulfilling that part. Thus, you (a part of the userbase) are partly to be blamed for that bug. If even most users of WIkipedia fixed bugs, this would not have happened.
how can i fix the thing when i do not have the answer?
i went to the site to get the answer. i am not an authority over chunky pandey.
You could clearly infer that it was an vandalism. You could have just clicked on edit and removed the line.
how can i be sure that the information on the page is not even accurate. maybe i am just confused that it is inaccurate. maybe it IS indeed accurate?
Then you put a [citation needed] instead of removing the sentence. It is a good enough warning that the information may not be accurate.
duh. i am not a wikipedia expert. i do not know the terminology of the process procedure.
It is certainly probable that you have seen a [citation needed] clause somewhere in Wikipedia. Even if you have not, there are many jokes on [citation needed] floating around in the ‘net, especially the one of xkcd, and it is probable you have read most or all jokes of xkcd. It is weird that you didn’t know about [citation needed].
so i am supposed to populate wikipedia with jokes i read on the internet?
You expect people to know about “citation needed” because of jokes online, xkcd jokes to boot!? What people are we talking about here – average internet users?
And what if there really was a “citation needed” next to that name? Does that increase the trustworthiness of Wikipedia? No, now you just know for a fact that you can’t trust that particular piece of information.
equark is delusional [citation needed].
Just kidding
he is also very paranoid
LOL! Totally cracked me up
Reminds me of the time we went to watch “The Island” and one of the characters was actually named Gandu…
Actually Wikipedia is such a website that allows all its users to fix bugs in it. So, the people misuse the facts given in the website and make it a bug by giving wrong onfprmation. But it can be said thay you might have edited it also because editing can be done by every user on Wikipedia.