RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Comic Books John Byrne v Wikipedia

Quote:

---

Son of Mxy said:
I want John Byrne and I want him NOW!

---

Quote:

---

britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
I wish John Byrne would eat my shorts.

---

Quote:

---

Warren Ellis said:

Quote:

---

John Byrne said:
I am currently in the process of rewriting the all of Wikipedias entries.

I am also currently looking to cast Rob Kamphausen as North Star.

---

I'm a fat ugly cunt!

---

Quote:

---

Derek Zoolander said:
...

---

Quote:

---

Son of Mxy said:
John Byrne is the greatest retconner ever!

---

Quote:

---

John Byrne said:

Quote:

---

Grimm said:
John Byrne is a great artist. I want to bear his children.

---

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:
looking at other comic writers I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_W._Mack

I don't think I've ever read his work, but the last line on the profile is funny.

---

Put a fork in Wikipedia. The experiment has failed. […] At the end of the day, there needs to be a final judge or authority. […] Just pull his file if he has such a problem with the internet […] They should have just deleted the entry on him entirely.

John Bryne is apparently a cartoonist of some kind

Quote:

---

Wednesday said:

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:
looking at other comic writers I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_W._Mack

I don't think I've ever read his work, but the last line on the profile is funny.

---

I like Kabuki and his Daredevil run, but he's an acquired taste.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
One blog is basically declaring that the Byrne controversy has effectively demonstrated that wikipedia is a failure:

Put a fork in Wikipedia. The experiment has failed. […] At the end of the day, there needs to be a final judge or authority. […] Just pull his file if he has such a problem with the internet […] They should have just deleted the entry on him entirely.

So Byrne has not only killed the credibility of numerous once-popular comic book characters, he wiped out a legendary internet experiement.

That blog also, interestingly enough, puts Byrne's career into probably the clearest perspective yet:

John Bryne is apparently a cartoonist of some kind

---

#REDIRECT [[John Byrne]]

Quote:

---

casselmm47 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=ignorant+jackass&go=Go

I throw down the gauntlet.

---

Quote:

---

casselmm47 said:
Greatness.

Now, can you do that with "Cum gurgling drama queen", too?

---

For Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, last week was a tough one. And he's going to change the ground rules for the popular anyone-can-contribute encyclopedia because of it.

First, in a Nov. 29 op-ed piece in USA Today, a former administrative assistant to Robert Kennedy lambasted the free online reference work for an article that suggested he may have been involved in the assassinations of both Robert F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy.

Then, on Dec. 1, a new flurry of attention came when former MTV VJ and podcasting pioneer Adam Curry was accused of anonymously editing out references to other people's seminal podcasting work in an article about the hot new digital medium.

To critics of Wikipedia--which, in a spin on the open-source model, lets anyone create and edit entries--the news was further proof that the service has no accountability and no place in the world of serious information gathering.

"Wales, in a recent C-SPAN interview...insisted that his Web site is accountable and that his community of thousands of volunteer editors...corrects mistakes within minutes," former Robert Kennedy aide John Seigenthaler wrote in USA Today. "My experience refutes that...For four months, Wikipedia depicted me as a suspected assassin."

Wales has dealt with criticism for years, and he's sensitive to it. He knows that many people worry that Wikipedia's self-policing process can't possibly keep up with the massive number of new articles that crop up on the site, and the edits that appear in existing entries. The cybertome, after all, is home to millions of articles--nearly 850,000 in English alone, with many other entries in dozens of additional languages. In October, the English-language site hosted 1,515 new articles per day.

A man who posted false information on an online encyclopedia linking a prominent journalist to the Kennedy assassinations says he was playing a trick on a co-worker.

Brian Chase, 38, ended up resigning from his job and apologizing to John Seigenthaler Sr., the former publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director of USA Today.

"I knew from the news that Mr. Seigenthaler was looking for who did it, and I did it, so I needed to let him know in particular that it wasn't anyone out to get him, that it was done as a joke that went horribly, horribly wrong," Chase was quoted as saying in Sunday editions of The Tennessean.

Chase said he didn't know the free Internet encyclopedia called Wikipedia was used as a serious reference tool.

The biography he posted, which has since been replaced, falsely stated that Seigenthaler was linked to the Kennedy assassinations and had lived in the Soviet Union from 1971 to 1984.

The entry motivated Seigenthaler to write an op-ed piece for USA Today blasting Wikipedia's credibility. He described himself as a close friend of Robert Kennedy and said he had worked with President Kennedy. He said "the most painful thing was to have them suggest that I was suspected of their assassination."

Seigenthaler said he doesn't plan to pursue legal action against Chase.

Quote:

---

Nowhereman said:
I went there recently & they sent me a warning even though I am not registered!
Apparently they will ban my IP if I keep altering Byrnes entry!

---

Quote:

---

Science Journal: Wikipedia Pretty Accurate
By DAN GOODIN, AP Technology Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday.

The finding, based on a side-by-side comparison of articles covering a broad swath of the scientific spectrum, comes as Wikipedia faces criticism over the accuracy of some of its entries.

Two weeks ago prominent journalist John Seigenthaler, the former publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director of USA Today, revealed that a Wikipedia entry that ran for four months had incorrectly named him as a longtime suspect in the assassinations of president John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.

Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature said in Wednesday's article, which the scientific journal said was the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia to Britannica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.

Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found — including misinterpretations of important concepts — four came from each source, the journal reported.

"We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," said Jimmy Wales, who founded St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Wikipedia in 2001.

Wales said the accuracy of his project varies by topic, with strong suits including pop culture and contemporary technology. That's because Wikipedia's stable of dedicated volunteers tend to have more collective expertise in such areas, he said.

The site tends to lag when it comes to topics touching on the humanities, such as the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature for a particular year, Wales said.

Next month, Wikipedia plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles. The group also is working on ways to make its review process easier to use by people who have less familiarity with computers and the Internet.

Encyclopedia Britannica officials declined to comment on the findings because they haven't seen the data. But spokesman Tom Panelas said such comparisons, assuming they're conducted correctly, are valuable "because they tell us things you wouldn't know otherwise."

While some Britannica officials have publicly criticized Wikipedia's quality in the past, Panelas praised the free service for having the speed and breadth to keep up on topics such as "extreme ironing." The sport, in which competitors iron clothing in remote locations, is not covered in Britannica.

Britannica researchers plan to review the Nature study and correct any errors discovered, Panelas said.

Unlike Britannica, which charges for its content and pays a staff of experts to research and write its articles, Wikipedia gives away its content for free and allows anyone — amateur or professional, expert or novice — to submit and edit entries.

Wikipedia, which boasts 3.7 million articles in 200 languages, is the 37th most visited Web site on the Internet, according to the research service Alexa.

---

Quote:

---

thedoctor said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051215/ap_on_hi_te/wikipedia_accuracy

Quote:

---

Science Journal: Wikipedia Pretty Accurate
By DAN GOODIN, AP Technology Writer

<img src="http://news.yahoo.com/photo/051211/photos_lf_afp/051211203459_c0x6eg1o_photo0;_ylt=Alvq4eU3Ua.d.gpZD2y.QIxk24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGk2OHYzBHNlYwN0bXA-" align=left>SAN FRANCISCO - Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday.

The finding, based on a side-by-side comparison of articles covering a broad swath of the scientific spectrum, comes as Wikipedia faces criticism over the accuracy of some of its entries.

Two weeks ago prominent journalist John Seigenthaler, the former publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director of USA Today, revealed that a Wikipedia entry that ran for four months had incorrectly named him as a longtime suspect in the assassinations of president John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.

Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature said in Wednesday's article, which the scientific journal said was the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia to Britannica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.

Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found — including misinterpretations of important concepts — four came from each source, the journal reported.

"We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," said Jimmy Wales, who founded St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Wikipedia in 2001.

Wales said the accuracy of his project varies by topic, with strong suits including pop culture and contemporary technology. That's because Wikipedia's stable of dedicated volunteers tend to have more collective expertise in such areas, he said.

The site tends to lag when it comes to topics touching on the humanities, such as the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature for a particular year, Wales said.

Next month, Wikipedia plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles. The group also is working on ways to make its review process easier to use by people who have less familiarity with computers and the Internet.

Encyclopedia Britannica officials declined to comment on the findings because they haven't seen the data. But spokesman Tom Panelas said such comparisons, assuming they're conducted correctly, are valuable "because they tell us things you wouldn't know otherwise."

While some Britannica officials have publicly criticized Wikipedia's quality in the past, Panelas praised the free service for having the speed and breadth to keep up on topics such as "extreme ironing." The sport, in which competitors iron clothing in remote locations, is not covered in Britannica.

Britannica researchers plan to review the Nature study and correct any errors discovered, Panelas said.

Unlike Britannica, which charges for its content and pays a staff of experts to research and write its articles, Wikipedia gives away its content for free and allows anyone — amateur or professional, expert or novice — to submit and edit entries.

Wikipedia, which boasts 3.7 million articles in 200 languages, is the 37th most visited Web site on the Internet, according to the research service Alexa.

---

---