Caroline is watching “Alvin and the Chipmunks” on cable at the moment, and I decided to check and see if the sequel I’d heard about was actually happening. I looked it up on Wikipedia and here’s the actual, honest-to-God entry:
A sequel to Alvin and the Chipmunks (introducing the Chipettes) was confirmed. It is set to be released on Christmas Day 2009 and is named Alvin and the Chipmunks 2: The Squeakuel.[1] On July 28, it was confirmed that Matt Stow will return as Dave Seville and Michael Jackson, Alan Jackson, and John McCain will return as the voices of Alvin, Simon, and Theodore[5]. Details on who the Chipettes will be are unknown, but rumored to be Brad Dourif (Brittany), Anselmo Dejusus (Jeanette), and Barack Obama (Eleanor). In the sequel, Alvin, Simon, and Theodore go to school and feel like “Chipmunks Out of Water” because of all the human kids eating them.
You know what? If that was the sequel and who was in it, I’d be there on opening day.
PAD
• 
I’d feel a bit ‘out of water’ myself if everyone was eating me.
Ah, you’ve gotta love Wiki. You can’t believe it, but you’ve gotta love it.
gotta love wiki even if something is true on that site no one can ever say they “read it on wikipedia” cause that’ll instantly discredit them in an argument/conversation.
PS Yay for Sentinels in X-Factor #41
Of course someone’s been screwing with Wikipedia again. That’s what it was made for.
Brad Douriff? Wow, from Wormtongue to Helium Tongue. Talk about “change we can believe in.” 🙂
Seriously, though, the anonymous user who did that had apparently been warned numerous times before, and even blocked once for his/her vandalism. I’ve blocked him for three months: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:98.21.47.220
I will never understand why Jimmy Wales continues to allow anonymous IP editing. Restricting edit to an account (hëll, require people to pay one penny with a credit card or something when signing up) would greatly reduce such vandalism, as almost all the vandalism I see is conducted by anonymous IP’s.
Bryan: gotta love wiki even if something is true on that site no one can ever say they “read it on wikipedia” cause that’ll instantly discredit them in an argument/conversation.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, really. I mean sure, the info in question could’ve come from one of the peer reviewed, Featured Article, (say, one of the science articles, which have been found by independent studies to have an average of four errors to Britannica’s three), and sourced to an article in the New York Times or the New England Journal of Medicine or something, but still, that would be fruit from the poisonous wikitree, and it can’t be trusted.
Why is Brad Dourif not in more children’s entertainment? I’m thinking Baby Deadwood.
Brad Dourif would be better at comedy than you would think. He has a dry wit about him that allows for some great delivery of lines with comic intent.
I’m turning gay right now at the thought of Brad Dourif singing, “Ooo-eee, ooo-ah-ah/ Ting-tang, walla-walla-bing-bang/”
I’d go see Brad Dourif in almost anything, personally.
That said … while I don’t in general approve of Wiki vandalism, this is pretty dámņ hilarious.
I just checked. The bit about the sequel’s been cleaned up now.
It had already been cleaned up by the time I checked it out. About three and a half hours before I got there, in fact, which means about 2pm EST.
And yeah, I’d go see Dourif in anything. Many character actors like him are unsung heroes who can blend into any role or cast.
They can always fit Brad Dourif into the chipmunk sequel by subtitling it, “Nurse Ratched, Please Don’t Tell My Witch Doctor.”
Can’t you just see the subtitle? “Chip On Their Shoulder” or something.
I’m going back to fixing my computer now.
Bryan – “no one can ever say they “read it on wikipedia” cause that’ll instantly discredit them in an argument/conversation.”
I wish. The office spent a tidy sum having me take an ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure Library) course back in January, and the reference book the people at the course provided was littered with Wikipedia references. Worry about it.
This isn’t funny. It makes me want to find the person who wrote it and strangle him.
Actually, I just finished a ten hour and twenty minute drive. I’m not entirely sure my rage is objective.
Jason–where did you go? I just took about the same amount of time to go from NC to NY. It would be funny if we made the same trip. We could have driven side by side and honked horns when we saw the other one falling asleep and drifting toward the guardrail.
Bill “Crash” Mulligan: “It would be funny if we made the same trip. We could have driven side by side and honked horns when we saw the other one falling asleep and drifting toward the guardrail.”
Yeah, sure. Like anyone is going to believe you after the last time you made that promise to someone.
“Hey, Honey, hand me the video camera. Hëll yeah this is great! We could never afford to budget an FX crash that looks this good for the next movie…”
And you still haven’t ponied up the money you promised Myers’ to help cover the repairs or medical costs.
“And you still haven’t ponied up the money you promised Myers’ to help cover the repairs or medical costs.”
That’s OK. I’m going to get Bill Mulligan back by creating a Wikipedia entry about him.
I went from Orlando to North Carolina. Home for the holidays.
You’re smarter than me. I headed right into a snow storm.
Myers ain’t getting jack. he blew the audio by waking up as the car slammed into the guardrail and using cuss words. This is a family movie we’re trying to make here. Also, real blood looks a lot less impressive than my own formula (What’s my secret? a little chunky penut butter)
They should have a whole separate site where all of the hilariously vandalized articles are saved for posterity.
(Until then, we’ll always have Uncyclopedia and Wikiality, which are both pretty entertaining.)
The GOTTA cast McCain as the mean, misunderstood old neighbour. He just does distracted cranky so well.
Speaking of road trips, ran from Vancouver to L.A. and watched three semis jack knife into each other in Mt. Shasta CA. You guys want tech advise for your next Highway to Heck extravaganza, I’m good to go.
So, people essentially just play “Mad Libs” with Wikipedia sometimes, huh?
Well, anyway, while I heard them talking about a Chipmunks sequel, I don’t think anything’s been confirmed yet. However, apparently, the soundtrack to the first movie did so well that they recently released a second album.
“In the sequel, Alvin, Simon, and Theodore go to school and feel like “Chipmunks Out of Water” because of all the human kids eating them.”
That’s hilarious.
Rob Brown: Until then, we’ll always have Uncyclopedia and Wikiality…
Luigi Novi: And Encyclopedia Dramatica.
Wikipedia is reliable…if you learn to check to see how old the current version of the entry is.
That crazy ensign from Voyager / Wormtounge from LOTR as a Chipette? Christ, they’d make so much extra cash off of that it’d be a genius idea.
I’m gonna now go far out on a limb (and probably get sawed off) to say that the original Alvin and the Chimpmunks wasn’t all that bad. Chimpmunks eating feces aside (two chipmunks, one cup anyone? Ick.) the songs were generally catchy overall (aside from a few clunkers), it was madcap and silly enough to enjoy, and it had Tobias from Arrested Development as the bad guy? How can you not dig seeing David Cross as a main character in anything? I mean, come on!
The utterly corrupt, stupid, sleazy internet trash that is Wikipedia still exists?
WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THAT?
And why is it people always laugh at train wrecks, the end results of human stampedes, doomed political dissidents, and tampering with something that’s a pathetic farce to start with?
(I’ve NEVER looked at Wikipedia, but I’ve seen people stupidly brag about it, pointlessly laugh at it, and grow insanely obsessed over it, and in most cases, become hopelessly angry and frustrated with the utter corruption of it, all for incredibly stupid reasons. I don’t understand WHY it should exist in the first place? IT IS CORRUPT AND USELESS. The first stirrings of Alchemax 2099, perhaps?)
The utterly corrupt, stupid, sleazy internet trash that is Wikipedia still exists?
WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THAT?
And why is it people always laugh at train wrecks, the end results of human stampedes, doomed political dissidents, and tampering with something that’s a pathetic farce to start with?
(I’ve NEVER looked at Wikipedia, but I’ve seen people stupidly brag about it, pointlessly laugh at it, and grow insanely obsessed over it, and in most cases, become hopelessly angry and frustrated with the utter corruption of it, all for incredibly stupid reasons. I don’t understand WHY it should exist in the first place? IT IS CORRUPT AND USELESS. The first stirrings of Alchemax 2099, perhaps?)
No, it is not reliable. People tell me they have been WRONGFULLY BANNED for as alleged sockpuppets of each other for wasting their time in attempting to make things right. WIKIPEDIA IS OVERRUN WITH CORRUPTION.
It’s a shame the world isn’t ruled by honest people, but honest people know for certain they can never do that much work!
No, it is not reliable. People tell me they have been WRONGFULLY BANNED for as alleged sockpuppets of each other for wasting their time in attempting to make things right. WIKIPEDIA IS OVERRUN WITH CORRUPTION.
It’s a shame the world isn’t ruled by honest people, but honest people know for certain they can never do that much work!
Jen J.: IT IS CORRUPT AND USELESS
Luigi Novi: If the choice for someone looking for a piece of information is between nothing and Wikipedia, and that person finds info that is supported by a reliable cited source, then Wikipedia is indeed useful. Failing to make a distinction between badly written articles and good ones is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Using Wikipedia is certainly better than just doing a Google search, which is far less regulated and reliable, and yet, no one ever doubts the usefulness of Google.
Jen J.: No, it is not reliable. People tell me they have been WRONGFULLY BANNED for as alleged sockpuppets of each other for wasting their time in attempting to make things right. WIKIPEDIA IS OVERRUN WITH CORRUPTION.
Luigi Novi: Again, its reliability depends on the piece of info in question. If it’s sourced to a reliable source that you can look up and verify, then how is it not reliable?
As for banned sock puppets, what does this happen to do with its reliability? If people you know were banned for sock puppetry, then it’s probably because they were engaging in sock puppetry. The vitriolic nature of your post seems to reveal a lot more about your own biases than about Wikipedia’s.
I just stated the cold hard facts as I see them, Luigi. People have been harmed by Wikipedia. No need to go all Iowa Jim on me with the cynicism.
Except that, with all due respect, you didn’t state “the cold hard facts,” Jen. You stated a lot of all-caps assertions with no verifiable facts backing them up.
I’ll absolutely say that Wikipedia has its bad points — as a teacher, I have to discourage my students on a regular basis from using it as a reliable source. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s there, that it *usually* is reliable if you know how to look, and that it’s a very convenient source of information that was unfathomable to consider a decade ago.
It sounds like there’s a potential for a really good debate here — but you make it happen, you need to stop ranting and start talking.
She can’t start really talking, Tim. She said herself that she’s never actually looked at Wikipedia. She’s not giving actual facts because she doesn’t have any, she doesn’t even have any opinions of her own. She only has the opinions that she’s heard from other people. It’s impossible for her to change those opinions because they’re not hers in the first place.
Just leave her alone. If she wants to believe that Wikipedia is evil, then that’s what she’s going to believe.
Jerry and Bill Mulligan, if I ever am killed in a car crash I will make sure my will includes instructions to print this thread and distribute it to you and everyone else at my funeral. It should make for an interesting event. I won’t be there to see it, of course.
As for Wikipedia, I don’t understand why they don’t adopt the Linux model. Anyone can submit proposed changes to the Linux kernel (the code that is at the core of every Linux operating system), but only a small group of people actually decides what changes are actually made. In much the same way, Wikipedia should screen submissions before they are posted. It would be the best of both worlds: anyone could contribute their knowledge, but the articles would be vetted.
Oh, I believe Microsoft Encarta is (or at least was) using the model I’ve suggested: soliciting submissions from the general public but vetting those submissions before publishing them online. I believe Wikipedia, however, is a non-profit organization (IIRC); I’d be a lot more willing to contribute an article to a non-profit in exchange for nothing more than “bragging rights” than I would to a for-profit publication.
Jen J.: I just stated the cold hard facts as I see them, Luigi.
Luigi Novi: “Facts as I see them” is a contradictory phrase, Jen. You can state facts, or you can state things “as you see them”. They’re not the same thing.
And in point of fact, you did not state facts. You stated an opinion, and without providing the basis upon which you formed that opinion, as you indicated that you never even looked at Wikipedia, and expressed it in a very angered, crude tone.
Given that the topic is the reliability of Wikipedia, and your perception thereof, the fact that you never bothered to look at the site for confirmation of your accusations, and yet refer to them as “facts”, is quite ironic.
Jen J.: People have been harmed by Wikipedia.
Luigi Novi: If that’s true, then why didn’t you mention this in your post above? Who were you referring to?
Jen J.: No need to go all Iowa Jim on me with the cynicism.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t respond with cynicism. I simply rebutted your assertions by pointing out what was wrong with them. That is not cynicism, and I don’t see what this has to do with Iowa Jim. While I certainly don’t agree with his fundamentalist viewpoints, cynicism is not a word I’d attribute to them, or his expression thereof. It is, however, a very apt description of the reasoning and expression in your post above. Do you really believe that dismissing all of Wikipedia, even the work that say, I do, without distinguishing for quality, and without ever checking it out yourself, qualifies as a reasoned and balanced viewpoint? Me, I think one should keep an open mind and make that distinction. How is the latter cynical, but the former not?
Iowa Jim and I don’t exactly see eye-to-eye, and for that matter aren’t exactly on cordial terms. Nevertheless, I’ve got to stand up and say it is unfair and uncalled for in the extreme to single him out as some sort of standard-bearer for cynicism, particularly in a conversation he hasn’t even joined. If they were handing out “most cynical poster at PAD’s blog,” I’m not sure he’d even make the list of nominees.
Sigh… typing too fast. Meant to say: I am sure Iowa Jim would not make the list of nominees for “most cynical poster.”
At least Wikipedia, vandalism aside, attempts to be accurate. There are other wikis, with strong PsOV, which decide what they’re opinions are and bend the facts to fit.
OT: Peter, I got this email the other day.
Rather than respond to the address mentioned, I thought I’d post here and ask, what do I need to do to get my million Euros? I’d prefer a cheque.
Apologies for double-post. As I hit “post” I realized a misspelling, but didn’t catch it in time.
Wikipedia actually puts a lot of effort into getting their articles sourced properly. I’ve seen many articles locked down because of people making dumb changes. There are always a lot of articles that have notices at the top saying they need better sourcing, and if they don’t get it then the unsourced parts of the article are stripped down.
They just don’t have the manpower to keep up with everything in real time. The number of changes made to Wikipedia in a day is huge. Wikipedia would barely have any articles at all if they took the time to double check everything before allowing a post to be seen. As it is, they wait for people to report erroneous stuff and bad behavior, which works out pretty well. Like in this case, where the chipmunk thing got sorted out before most of us had a chance to even see it for ourselves.
When I think of Brad Dourif, I think of his portrayal of Brother Edward in the Babylon 5 episode “Passing Through Gethsemane.”
As to Wikipedia, one thing that annoys me about it is that often when reading an entry, I’ll see the same information repeated in different sections. Now to some degree, this is because different people are contributing different bits of information, but you’d think they’d read the whole entry first (or a at least do a quick search) to make sure the information they’re intending to add isn’t already there. If their intention is to put this information in what they feel is a more logical place in the entry, they should cut it from its old location, not have remain twice in the same entry.
One more than one occasion, I’ve wanted to go in and edit Wikipedia entries from top to bottom so they were consistent from beginning to end in spelling, grammar, and syntax, and avoided redundancies; but I’ve not felt like investing that much time and effort. Especially when someone else could revert to the previous error-ridden version.
And why do some people seem to feel the urge to attach hyperlinks to words that seem to have no bearing on the entry in question? To make up an example, “Smith’s breakthrough poem ‘doors and windows’ was first published in 1810” would have the words “doors” and “windows” hyperlinked so people could find out what those objects were.
Would a print dictionary entry of our mythical poet refer the reader back to the entries on doors and/or windows? Not likely. It’s great that you can click on a hyperlink and learn more about something related to the subject at hand, but the hyperlinking of certain words in certain entries could be seen as saying “people need help in knowing what this word or phrase means.”
As long as anyone can edit Wikipedia, we can expect anything from outright vandalism to unintentionally erroneous entries based on incorrect source material (believe it or not a book from the 1970s or early 1980s about TV shows, the title of which escapes me at the moment, tells us that “John Kirk” was captain of the Enterprise.). Which is why I would argue against Wikipedia being used as a primary source, especially by students.
As to vandalism vs. innocent mistakes, I suspect that most cases of the former would be obvious, but what about the latter?
Star Trek Wikipedia pages are probably visited often enough that had the original entry been based on the above book, Kirk’s name would have been corrected very quickly. But what if the entry in question isn’t related to a pop culture phenomenon, but a 19th century president- something more likely to be the subject of a student’s report? Our high school student looking up the president in question for his or her report on his administration takes Wikipedia at its word that David Seville was secretary of state at the time, and that Ross Bagdasarian was secretary of the treasury. Eventually the entry might get fixed, but probably not before a lot of students had relied on the wrong information.
I used Seville/Bagdasarian not only because of the Chipmunks connection, but because I suspect that even with the return of the characters of the Chipmunks, most high school students and those of a younger age wouldn’t automatically connect either of those names with the musical rodents unless the names “Alvin”, “Simon” and “Theodore” also appeared in the entry somewhere.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a lot of subtle and deliberate vandalism that goes unnoticed, especially in entries having nothing to do with popular culture, and thus aren’t visited as often.
Wikipedia has a lot of potential, but I think it has a ways to go before it could be used as a reliable primary source.
Bill Myers: Both “I’m not sure he’d even make the list of nominees.” and “I am sure Iowa Jim would not make the list of nominees” pretty much say the same thing: that Jim wouldn’t be on that list. Though the key difference, of course, is that in the second example you state a certainty.
Either way, your intention was clear. At least to me.
Rick
Whereas for me Brad Dourif always sticks out in my mind because of the episode from the TV series The Hunger titled “Sin Seer.” He pretty much carried that thing by himself and made it a lot better than it could have been.
By the way, I think John McCain and Barack Obama would be great choices for a movie such as the one described in the spoofed entry. Earlier this year they proved they can both do comedy.
Oh, and they were pretty funny at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner too.
Rick Keating: “Either way, your intention was clear. At least to me.”
Wow. That makes one of us.
My main beef with wikipedia is the “nerdism” of the many articles dealing with pop culture. You want to know about a movie, TV show, or comic character, and the page is a long, dry, highly in-world description of everything the characters have ever done. It’s not about what the movie is about or what/who the character is. It’s a dry biography full of insider words and tics looking like it’s been written by someone with Asperger’s.
The problem with Wicked-pedia is that too many people are willing to let that be their only source, thus I must agree with Jen J. that it is thus useless.
But Wicked-pedia, in spite of my mocking its name, is not evil; it is just a tool for evil. Much different.
The problem with Wikipedia is that you can have a majority, let’s say 90%, of the site being accurate, but it’s the 10% that creates issues. Part of the reason that the 10% is a problem is because it’s not saying that 90 pages of information out of every 100 is right; it’s saying that there are errors on just about every page. The errors may be small and there may only be one or two errors on a given page, but an error in just the wrong place can totally screw up what you’re reading.
Let’s say someone saw something about the causes for The Battle of Hastings and the start of it. They remembered something about it from school and saw an error on the page. Problem is, it’s something they misremembered from school and often repeated wrongly. They “correct” the site.
__________________________________________
The Battle of Hastings
When Edward the Conqueror died he left no direct heir, and the throne of England passed to Harold. However, William of Normandy claimed that Edward had promised the crown to him, and indeed that Harold himself had sworn a sacred oath to relinquish his claim in William’s favor.
William prepared an invasion fleet and, armed with a papal bull declaring his right to the throne, he crossed the English Channel to land near Pevensey.
Harold, in the meantime, had another threat to concern him; his brother Tostig allied with Harald of Hardrada from Normandy and landed in the south of England. They took York, but Harold defeated them soundly at the Battle of Stamford Bridge.
No sooner had the battle dust settled than Harold received news of William’s invasion in the north. He marched his tired men from York to Sussex, arriving there on October 13 to face the Saxons.
__________________________________________
I took this from an educational/historical site (I’m not saying which one for a reason) and changed a few things. But what did I change?
The only way that you can verify what’s been written above about The Battle of Hastings is to factcheck each and every sentence there by cross referencing it with educational texts and websites. And if you’re going to dig out books and go to university or qualified and established websites that deal with world history just to factcheck Wikipedia; you may as well not use Wikipedia and have to deal with the errors that will make your work look sloppy and second rate.
And even if you say that the above errors would probably be caught and corrected rather quickly, who’s to say that someone else won’t uncorrect them? And how many people will see the incorrect information each time it’s altered before someone else catches and correct the errors?
Wikipedia was a nice idea, but the reality of it is that you can’t get good, reliable information from it and you certainly can’t use it as any sort of definitive source on anything. Is every other site out there 100% accurate? No. But most established sites set up to be news, information or history sites have professionals doing the work and a team of professionals doing the fact checking to ensure that they’re as accurate as possible. Wikipedia has people logging on and editing daily whether they know the facts or not.