![Dispatch: "I Jacked It On Camera For Money"](http://cache-08.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/11/2010/03/126x100_will_masturbating_01.jpg "Dispatch: "I Jacked It On Camera For Money"")
Enter your username and password.
It's a surprising visual; the US seems to have a lot, given that it's only existed for like 5 minutes. However internet user bias etc I guess makes a big difference.
I think this is a testiment to how history is warped by those recording it; even in modern times; Africa, a continent rich in history and political news, barely even represented. Reply
I think this is a testiment to how history is warped by those recording it; even in modern times; Africa, a continent rich in history and political news, barely even represented. Reply
@iheartpie: A lot of modern culture is very much centered around the American entertainment industry. A lot of Wikipedia is about actors, actresses, movies, shows ect. which probably pushes those numbers further upwards. Plus there are many more people involved in American politics than in other places so there are a lot more articles about politicians from America than elsewhere.
Reply
@Maori_Yelir: Sorry my first post was short on details, I've since edited it.
However the politcal reference you've made is only VERY recent. There are countres (quite a few) that have a deeper and more complex political histroy that completely pre-dates the USA (in fact strip out everything that's happened since collonisation and there'd still be more to write) . If we were talking news, then you'd be right, but we're not, this is an encyclopdeia of knowledge. Reply
However the politcal reference you've made is only VERY recent. There are countres (quite a few) that have a deeper and more complex political histroy that completely pre-dates the USA (in fact strip out everything that's happened since collonisation and there'd still be more to write) . If we were talking news, then you'd be right, but we're not, this is an encyclopdeia of knowledge. Reply
@iheartpie: But when the encyclopedia itself is less than 10 years and has a free-for-all kind of article writing system you see recent events spur people to add them. They do not start from the beginning and work from the end, very much the opposite way. As of right now there are more hands in American politics than most that are more rapidly coming and going and thus have articles written and updated about them more often than most places in the world.
Reply
@roflwaffles is attempting hipster irony: Ancient history refers to a period about 500 years before the colonisation of the US (that's right, USA doesn't even have any ancient history!).
But you're right, the focus is mostly modern; but I think that's a shame; so much knowledge, and yet most of it is about films and TV written in the past 50 years. 90% of what comes out of Hollywood is tripe now, imagine how it'll be seen in another 50 years :p "We built wikipedia to share knowledge, and now no one uses it cause they can't avoid references to Ben Affleck" Reply
But you're right, the focus is mostly modern; but I think that's a shame; so much knowledge, and yet most of it is about films and TV written in the past 50 years. 90% of what comes out of Hollywood is tripe now, imagine how it'll be seen in another 50 years :p "We built wikipedia to share knowledge, and now no one uses it cause they can't avoid references to Ben Affleck" Reply
@iheartpie: That's why Wikipedia will never, and should never, be taken seriously. It's a pop-culture time capsule first, an encyclopedia second. It shows peoples priorities in life when they are more inclined to write about a movie than history and most history written is probably either inspired by a movie or a college class. The only history you are going to find is usually the most popular views of it and a lot of obscure or marginalized contributors to such will probably stay that way.
Reply
@Maori_Yelir:
I guess logistically this makes sense; however is technically the wrong way to go about it in my oppinion.
If you were starting a brand new dictionary you'd want to get the fundamentals down first, then get around to the new additions towards the end.
However as I say, from a logistical (and contribution) point of view it does make sense. Reply
I guess logistically this makes sense; however is technically the wrong way to go about it in my oppinion.
If you were starting a brand new dictionary you'd want to get the fundamentals down first, then get around to the new additions towards the end.
However as I say, from a logistical (and contribution) point of view it does make sense. Reply
@iheartpie: Dude, it's because people in Africa are generally less educated and are less likely to have internet access than people in the US. Free speech is also not culturally emphasized in Africa, compared to in the US.
Reply
@Maori_Yelir: I think because Wikipedia is relatively young, most articles are about recent events/people etc. Over time, if Wikipedia continues to exist, it will evolve and be more and more relevant. 500 years from now, who will really care that the greatest golfer of all time had an extramarital affair. Many past historical figures have done the same but they are only remembered for their important achievements and not their pop culture media attention. Of course, who knows if Wikipedia will be around in 500 years (or the internet for that matter).
Reply
@Hello Mister Walrus: The recording of African history (past tense) isn't reliant on internet access in Africa ... the history already exists, in text-books and other non-wikipedia sources.
Also much of Africa is much better educated than the US (South Africa for one). Reply
Also much of Africa is much better educated than the US (South Africa for one). Reply
@Hello Mister Walrus: You're partly right; I think it's probably also got something to do with whether or not Africans would use something like Wikipedia. I have no hard evidence either way, but I wouldn't be surprised if the level of internet usage in Africa far exceeds the impression given by the maps in the article.
*quickly researches*
Take a look at this: [www.internetworldstats.com]
- not the percentages so much as the growth of nearly 1400% in the last 9 years. Of course the penetration is still very low but way above the 'wikipedia' picture IMHO. Reply
*quickly researches*
Take a look at this: [www.internetworldstats.com]
- not the percentages so much as the growth of nearly 1400% in the last 9 years. Of course the penetration is still very low but way above the 'wikipedia' picture IMHO. Reply
@iheartpie: Odd, because ancient history is roughly equivalent to antiquity. I never knew that the middle ages were considered "ancient"
Also, you're extremely biased in your examination. Considering that Wiki's servers are located in the US, and the fact that English was the first and is the largest language wiki available, it isn't surprising that the majority of articles are about the US. Besides the fact that a good portion of articles are about recent events... Reply
Also, you're extremely biased in your examination. Considering that Wiki's servers are located in the US, and the fact that English was the first and is the largest language wiki available, it isn't surprising that the majority of articles are about the US. Besides the fact that a good portion of articles are about recent events... Reply
@Hello Mister Walrus: Dude, many countries in Africa sport a better educated populace than much of the world.
Also, the African continent is three times the size of North America with a diverse set of cultures that would defy your inane attempt to represent all of them in one homogeneous lump. Reply
Also, the African continent is three times the size of North America with a diverse set of cultures that would defy your inane attempt to represent all of them in one homogeneous lump. Reply
@alterKrieg: So you're saying that on average, people in Africa have equal access to education and free speech compared to people in developed countries? If so, wtf am I donating all this charity money to?
Reply
@iheartpie: People write about things closely related to them. I am much more likely to write about the history of my residence country than the history of some country halfway around the world that I know little about. So, if few people in a country have internet access and are outspoken on the internet, that country will not be frequently discussed on the internet.
"Also much of Africa is much better educated than the US (South Africa for one)."
First of all, I disagree with this statement. Second, you cannot just take the best country in Africa and take it as representative of the whole continent. Many countries in Africa are completely fucked up. Others don't have socioeconomically crushing issues, but are still developing countries. Obviously, this will have a negative effect on how often they write on the internet. Reply
"Also much of Africa is much better educated than the US (South Africa for one)."
First of all, I disagree with this statement. Second, you cannot just take the best country in Africa and take it as representative of the whole continent. Many countries in Africa are completely fucked up. Others don't have socioeconomically crushing issues, but are still developing countries. Obviously, this will have a negative effect on how often they write on the internet. Reply
@Hello Mister Walrus: Because for every dollar you send, these countries are paying back 12 dollars in colonial debt (debt racked up by colonizing forces and then forced upon the new governments when they finally left).
This site has a write-up on it.
[www.theendofpoverty.com]
Also, the infrastructure still blows balls for the most part and there remains enormous poverty on the continent. I'm not saying there aren't problems; they just aren't as obvious as your original comment would suggest. Reply
This site has a write-up on it.
[www.theendofpoverty.com]
Also, the infrastructure still blows balls for the most part and there remains enormous poverty on the continent. I'm not saying there aren't problems; they just aren't as obvious as your original comment would suggest. Reply
@alterKrieg: What I am saying is:
1) Africa is poor and people in Africa often don't have access to internet and education
2) Because of this, they don't write on the internet often
What you are saying seems to corroborate this more than anything... Reply
1) Africa is poor and people in Africa often don't have access to internet and education
2) Because of this, they don't write on the internet often
What you are saying seems to corroborate this more than anything... Reply
@Hello Mister Walrus: And I am saying that I agree in part. The difference is that education and poverty are not necessarily linked. I'm saying that maybe you're right about people only writing about what they know, sure. But that doesn't equal poor education but rather only lack of access.
And aside from South Africa, one could examine Senegal, Morocco, Algeria and Egypt for examples of what we're discussing. Reply
And aside from South Africa, one could examine Senegal, Morocco, Algeria and Egypt for examples of what we're discussing. Reply
@alterKrieg: You're precisely right about those countries but what about: Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, and the CAR.
Many countries in Africa not only are poor but have poor education systems as well. Reply
Many countries in Africa not only are poor but have poor education systems as well. Reply
@Maori_Yelir: Or maybe the reality is that most people aren't qualified to write on all these topics you think should be included in an open source encyclopedia, and much of this information isn't available from sources that would pass Wiki's reliability and objectivity standards.
Wikipedia can be taken seriously in that if you think something is untrue you can source the material and dispute it. Wikipedians have never tried to say that they are the paragon of encyclopedias, they've just tried to make sure that what is inside it is correct or a correct interpretation of whatever views someone takes the time to source and post on a particular subject. Is it perfect, far from it, but Wikipedia can post corrections far faster than any other large online knowledge base.
Would I reference Wikipedia for my doctoral thesis in a complex science? No, of course not, nor would they want you to. Could I reference it for most any other purpose besides graduate level research? Yes. Reply
Wikipedia can be taken seriously in that if you think something is untrue you can source the material and dispute it. Wikipedians have never tried to say that they are the paragon of encyclopedias, they've just tried to make sure that what is inside it is correct or a correct interpretation of whatever views someone takes the time to source and post on a particular subject. Is it perfect, far from it, but Wikipedia can post corrections far faster than any other large online knowledge base.
Would I reference Wikipedia for my doctoral thesis in a complex science? No, of course not, nor would they want you to. Could I reference it for most any other purpose besides graduate level research? Yes. Reply
@NorwoodIsMyHero: All it takes is one cleverly disguised troll to change one thing and suddenly your information is off. The moderators are only human, things can slip through the cracks. That's why even when not at graduate level I wouldn't touch Wikipedia with a 30 foot pole. It's good for common knowledge stuff, it's even good as a starting point for research but to use it as any more than just a casual read through is over-estimating it's worth by a whole hell of a lot.
Reply
@Maori_Yelir: As someone who edits Wikipedia occasionally I can assure you that on major articles there are often editors who watch for precisely those kinds of changes. Certainly sometimes trolls sneak through, but any amount of research at Wikipedia should be supplemented by a wide variety of other sources, and for anything you're actually planning on referencing most colleges consider it best practice to follow the the reference used on Wiki through to it's original source to ensure that it's an appropriate fact to reference from Wikipedia.
The best thing about Wikipedia is that it provides a basic point of reference for many subjects. I don't think anyone who works for Wikipedia believes it should be your heaviest source, but I've often found it is the handiest quick reference guide on any number of projects requiring research. Reply
The best thing about Wikipedia is that it provides a basic point of reference for many subjects. I don't think anyone who works for Wikipedia believes it should be your heaviest source, but I've often found it is the handiest quick reference guide on any number of projects requiring research. Reply