Wikipedia Page Looks Out Of Date

[lulzfish]

Wikipedia: "Developers have now stated that all financial difficulties are sorted, all missing parts are on the way, the design is finalized and that the case will be going in to mass production by mid-March, 2009 at the latest."

The last I heard, the case was going into mass production after they get a slightly re-configured CNC piece which they're still waiting on.
The main page definitely says the mold isn't even being made yet.

So, should someone update this?

 

[dflemstr]

So, should someone update this?


Why do you ask us? Just do it yourself

 

[lulzfish]

Well, that settles that. Now it just says "The console will be going into mass production once the case is ready"

 

[craigix]

Parts of the case are in MP.

 

[socket]

Parts of the case are in MP.

Which parts?

 

[atomicthumbs]

Parts of the case are in MP.

Which parts?


The parts which are in mass production :rolleyes:

 

[PoisonedV]

wikipedia sucks. no surprise here.

 

[Esn]

wikipedia sucks. no surprise here.

My oh my, it's a few weeks out of date. The horror. :rolleyes:

It's still often the closest thing you'll find to an objective source online for some subject. I like it for that reason alone.

 

[PoisonedV]

wikipedia sucks. no surprise here.

My oh my, it's a few weeks out of date. The horror. :rolleyes:

It's still often the closest thing you'll find to an objective source online for some subject. I like it for that reason alone.
i specifically love anything about extremism. nation of islam is probably one of my favorite articles, along with libertarianism (and anything in that entire section). i would love the NPOV article but they refuse to move it to Category:Comedy

 

[lootic]

seriously you are all noobs, why do you use wikipedia as a source when you can go buy a heavy expensive lexicon that can collect dust in the bookshelf, geez, internet is not going to last

 

[PoisonedV]

seriously you are all noobs, why do you use wikipedia as a source when you can go buy a heavy expensive lexicon that can collect dust in the bookshelf, geez, internet is not going to last

wow, you are so hilarious, pointing out that wikipedia is better because its the ONLY comprehensive online source of information and buying expensive and cumbersome books is the ONLY other place to get information and therefore worthless

(in case you didn't pick up on it, none of that was true)

 

[Xanas]

Where else would even bother considering something like OpenPandora worthy of an "encyclopedia" article?

Wikipedia does not in any way suck unless you consider a relatively small amount of inaccuracies on controversial articles a huge issue. It is significantly more comprehensive than any other source of information online other than google, and only falls to google because it's included in that content along with other wiki based content sites.

 

[PoisonedV]

Where else would even bother considering something like OpenPandora worthy of an "encyclopedia" article?

Wikipedia does not in any way suck unless you consider a relatively small amount of inaccuracies on controversial articles a huge issue. It is significantly more comprehensive than any other source of information online other than google, and only falls to google because it's included in that content along with other wiki based content sites.

Wait, placing importance on small things doesn't make something a good encyclopedia. It makes it a good encyclopedia for small things. Not to mention that the article was in hideously bad shape. And you also pointed out wikipedias key flaw there: there's always other ways to find information. Wikipedia has a niche place but won't admit it, it's convenient and it's lazy and it's useful, yes, but it's not the holy grail that everyone makes it out to be.

 

[Tom`]

Wait, placing importance on small things doesn't make something a good encyclopedia. It makes it a good encyclopedia for small things. Not to mention that the article was in hideously bad shape. And you also pointed out wikipedias key flaw there: there's always other ways to find information. Wikipedia has a niche place but won't admit it, it's convenient and it's lazy and it's useful, yes, but it's not the holy grail that everyone makes it out to be.


What's your definition of "small things?" Wikipedia has quite a few flaws, but the ones you point out are more than a little odd. You could talk about its over-reliance on consensus over correctness, verifiability over truth, administration nightmares...but instead, you say that

And you also pointed out wikipedias key flaw there: there's always other ways to find information. Wikipedia has a niche place but won't admit it, it's convenient and it's lazy and it's useful, yes, but it's not the holy grail that everyone makes it out to be.

I mean, the entire purpose of Wikipedia and resources like it are that you can easily find summarized information, with links to other sources. That is what makes it as useful as it is - while your particular religiously-charged imagery may be a little over the top, it is a "holy grail" (as the phrase is commonly used) when it comes to quickly finding information about any number of topics. It's not guaranteed that it's the best or most complete information - oh, no, you have to use your brain on the Internet - but the very fact that it has some information on just about everything, all in one place, is one of its greatest virtues, not a flaw.

 

[PoisonedV]

Wait, placing importance on small things doesn't make something a good encyclopedia. It makes it a good encyclopedia for small things. Not to mention that the article was in hideously bad shape. And you also pointed out wikipedias key flaw there: there's always other ways to find information. Wikipedia has a niche place but won't admit it, it's convenient and it's lazy and it's useful, yes, but it's not the holy grail that everyone makes it out to be.


What's your definition of "small things?" Wikipedia has quite a few flaws, but the ones you point out are more than a little odd. You could talk about its over-reliance on consensus over correctness, verifiability over truth, administration nightmares...but instead, you say that

And you also pointed out wikipedias key flaw there: there's always other ways to find information. Wikipedia has a niche place but won't admit it, it's convenient and it's lazy and it's useful, yes, but it's not the holy grail that everyone makes it out to be.

I mean, the entire purpose of Wikipedia and resources like it are that you can easily find summarized information, with links to other sources. That is what makes it as useful as it is - while your particular religiously-charged imagery may be a little over the top, it is a "holy grail" (as the phrase is commonly used) when it comes to quickly finding information about any number of topics. It's not guaranteed that it's the best or most complete information - oh, no, you have to use your brain on the Internet - but the very fact that it has some information on just about everything, all in one place, is one of its greatest virtues, not a flaw.

For the first part... I was replying to the previous post about why wikipedia is great. i wasn't listing it as a flaw in wikipedia
as for the second part, you're mostly right, but like you said, it's good for quickly finding information, but with no constant in its accurateness, you might as well be using google in the first place

 

[mafia-man]

wikipedia sucks. no surprise here.

Heretic! Wikipedia is a the fountain of all knowledge!!

hehehe

 

[Xanas]

Wait, placing importance on small things doesn't make something a good encyclopedia. It makes it a good encyclopedia for small things. Not to mention that the article was in hideously bad shape. And you also pointed out wikipedias key flaw there: there's always other ways to find information. Wikipedia has a niche place but won't admit it, it's convenient and it's lazy and it's useful, yes, but it's not the holy grail that everyone makes it out to be.


"Using google" only works in many cases because there is a wikipedia. It's come up as top hit and only useful start in many cases.

I'm not sure what you mean by "lazy" here, as there are 2 ways for that to be interpreted. I'll go with both of them.
1) I don't think it's lazy for users to go with the easiest way to get information. It's not only easier, but more efficient. It's a far better use of time than going through 10 websites to get the same information. I'll agree it's lazy if it's the only thing checked, particularly on more controversial subjects, but I don't think efficiency and quickness is lazy in the slightest.

2) I don't think wikipedia is lazy in terms of their monitoring of content additions. The pure size and ability of the world to edit it makes it somewhat flawed in it's presentation of material on some issues. No one can deny this. Overall though, I think it has a lot more working for it than against it.

I'll admit, I find Wikipedia desirable on ideological grounds as well. I think information, education, etc. should essentially be free. The foundation does quite a bit to make this possible for millions every day. They are doing more for this world on that issue than any other single entity of which I am aware. I'm not in any way saying they are perfect, but I think you sell them as short with "wikipedia sucks" comments by just as far as you think people go too far in thinking of them as the holy grail.

 

[PARALAX1974]

I hope all parts will be finished soon and the wait will be over.