Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1

    How does Inside Carolina...

    ... with all of its trash and 13 year olds and immature posts have a wikipedia entry and DBR doesn't?

    Can anyone explain/fix this situation?

  2. #2
    dbr (like inside carolina's) woruld be mercilessly edited and be requestiond for deletion.

    For example, as of now, inside carolina's about section has been edited to read:
    "Inside Carolina is filled with idiots."

    its really not worth it. look at JJ's wikipedia page. Most of IC's 13 year olds spend the day editing wikipedia...

  3. #3
    Nevermid, i tried to post a picture but it didnt work

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Wikipedia is as useful as Inside Carolina.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Quote Originally Posted by godukecom View Post
    look at JJ's wikipedia page.
    Maybe it has changed since the last time you looked at it, because I just took a look, and it was surprisingly fair--positive, really.

  6. #6
    yes, there are jj fans who reload the orgional content every 5 minutes...
    they are fighting a losing battle. Wikipedia is not only as useful as IC, but as unreliable as, well, i cant think of anything that unreliable. maybe suncom phone service.

  7. #7
    I am shocked how little you guys like Wikipedia. In terms of breadth and depth, it far surpasses every written encyclopedia I have ever seen (at least in areas that I am interested in). In my experience, it also tends to be both accurate and resistant to vandalism. The fact that it has a fair article on JJ seems to be impressive proof that it does work in even the most unlikely scenarios.

  8. #8
    wikipedia is very usefull if you are just curious about something...
    however, i would never trust it for something importiant. for example, use it to learn about tomatos? ok. Using it to write a boichemical report as a thesis paper on tomatoes? no way...

  9. #9
    Wikipedia is definitely a better source for esoteric scientific topics than biographies or controversial topics. Nature even published an essay saying that Wikipedia was about as accurate as Britannica in scientific articles. I'd guess that it's because contributors to specific scientific topics generally know the topic (I'm talking about topics like "Coeliac disease", not "biology," which more people edit). Although obviously I wouldn't use wikipedia as a primary source, but it can be helpful to get a general feel and to find important papers that are used.

    Biographies of controversial figures are pathetic since they are always skewed in one direction and give undo weight to controversies; any article subject to vandalism will not be so great; but who would take the effort to vandalize autostereogram?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Back in the dirty Jerz

    Wikipedia

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    Wikipedia is definitely a better source for esoteric scientific topics than biographies or controversial topics. Nature even published an essay saying that Wikipedia was about as accurate as Britannica in scientific articles. I'd guess that it's because contributors to specific scientific topics generally know the topic (I'm talking about topics like "Coeliac disease", not "biology," which more people edit). Although obviously I wouldn't use wikipedia as a primary source, but it can be helpful to get a general feel and to find important papers that are used.

    Biographies of controversial figures are pathetic since they are always skewed in one direction and give undo weight to controversies; any article subject to vandalism will not be so great; but who would take the effort to vandalize autostereogram?
    Wikipedia is great, especially if you are intelligent about how to use it. Well-cited articles in Wikipedia can be used to gain an understanding of a topic and as a starting point for further in-depth research, using the references cited.

    Any Wikipedia reader needs to know that nothing should be trusted at face-value - but that is true of everything you read on the Internet.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/te...gy/23link.html

    This article in the Times was a very interesting take on how good Wikipedia was at providing a real-time clearinghouse for the facts on the VT story as the first couple days progressed.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Back in the dirty Jerz

    Dbr

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Ash View Post
    ... with all of its trash and 13 year olds and immature posts have a wikipedia entry and DBR doesn't?

    Can anyone explain/fix this situation?
    Situation fixed. Edit away...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_basketball_report

  12. #12
    Unfortunately, the DBR Wikipedia article has been deleted.

    I wonder how IC has claimed "notability"?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham at heart

    Kinu responds

    OK, so if you guys are serious about making an entry on Wiki for DBR, then I think what you need is something a little more complete. These guys appear to be pretty serious about all the stuff that they knock off... just go read some of thier "Talk" pages. This is what I wrote to Kinu (one of the two folks who deleted the DBR Wiki entry). And his response, which, was quick and reasonably helpful. So either I've provided you with a way to make a useful DBR entry, or the IC entry will be delted. Ooops... my bad ICers.

    ------------------------------------------------
    Hi Kinu,

    Long time reader of Wikipedia, not at all a contributor, so fire away if I do not fully understand how threads are tagged for removal. There is a rather notable online community called The Duke Basketball Report that was started more than 10 years ago that has since become one of the definitive sites for Duke University athletics and college basketball in general. Recently some of the more frequent posters there thought that it would be fun start a Wiki entry, and begin to edit it with the idea of tracking the history of the site, and documenting for others info about the site and personalities that have come through over the years. The Wiki wntry was deleted quickly, once by you, with the sited reason that "Article about a non-notable individual, band, service, website or other entity" using NPWatcher)"

    My question is this, what specifically was the problem with the entry? Certainley a site that has recieved millions of hits during its existence is notable. Additionally, other fan sites of similar ilk seem to have Wiki entries that are permitted... even our rivals down the road at The University of North Carolina have an entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Carolina. So I guess I am wondering if the users who tried to start this particular entry made mistakes in someway that they might fix? Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.16.207.106 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC).


    Sorry... I missed signing the post.

    -The Mullet (Durham, NC... but that's probably obvious!)
    ----------------------------------------------
    The entire contents of the article as I deleted it consisted of: The Duke Basketball Report is one of the most popular destinations on the Web for fans of the Duke University Blue Devils. Starting in 1997 by Julio, Boswell and James, the Duke Basketball Report (DBR as it is known) has continuously grown and evolved from its initial days at "Juliovison." This information does not contain an assertion of notability, and as such was speedy deleted. You are welcome to recreate the article, provided that objective, sourced information is included to show why the site is notable. The relevant criteria for websites are located at WP:WEB. If you can show that the site meets Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, then surely it deserves a place within the encyclopedia, and I would support its inclusion. Let me know if you have any more questions! (As an aside, I might have to take a look at that Inside Carolina article and make sure it adheres to guidelines and policies as well... thank you for pointing that out to me as well.) --Kinu t/c 15:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Cool. That's pretty helpful. It essentially sounds like you are saying that the entry needs to be more complete rather than putting something up and adding to it over the course of a couple of weeks? I will let the originators know, and see if they's like to resubmit with a more complete entry. Thanks again!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Oh, the intrigue! I can't decide whether I'd rather win a wiki page for DBR or the deletion of the ic page. It would be really fun to start a wikiwar with the ic people (although I imagine the wiki admins would frown upon that).

  15. #15
    I would guess that this is the reason Inside Carolina is considered "notable":

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    IC is the most popular independent college team site on the Internet. It attracts nearly 400 000 visits per day from over 21 000 members...

    The November 27, 2000 edition of ESPN Magazine voted Inside Carolina as the top college hoops site. IC has been cited by Sports Illustrated (5/19/2003) as the leading source for independent, insider information on Tar Heel sports.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Back in the dirty Jerz
    Hmm that's a tad irritating. I'd hate to have to write the whole dang article somewhere else and then put it up. Why not highlight the article as a stub? If no one fixes it after some amount of time, then delete.

    Aah the intrigue of wikipedia.

  17. #17

    Smile

    Anybody taken a look at the current Inside Cryolina wiki?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Carolina

    Quite nice at the end!

    In case the page changes by the time anyone sees it, the last line is a big fat uncoded 9F!

Similar Threads

  1. Good Laugh for Inside Carolina
    By CAT Blue Devil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2008, 05:57 PM
  2. DeMarcus best inside guard ever?
    By tweeze in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-10-2008, 08:59 PM
  3. Inside Basketball with Coach K
    By Jarhead in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-09-2007, 09:18 PM
  4. Inside Access
    By buzz in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-08-2007, 09:08 PM
  5. Had to post this (from Inside Carolina)
    By Lord Ash in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-13-2007, 10:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •