Why Wikipedia is Alpha

[Exodus]

Human
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in the family Hominidae (the great apes).[1][2] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, but they now inhabit every continent, with a total population of over 6.5 billion as of 2007.

Like most primates, humans are social by nature; however, humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures composed of cooperating and competing groups, ranging in scale from small families and partnerships to species-wide political, scientific and economic unions. Social interactions between humans have also established an extremely wide variety of traditions, rituals, ethics, values, social norms, and laws which form the basis of human society. Humans also have a marked appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.

Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology and religion. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills; humans are the only known species to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies.

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

[Logos]

I love Wikipedia.

[Exodus]

I love Wikipedia.

Heck yes.

[Elro]

What are your thoughts on those that deliberately edit Wikipedia for fun so as to make it contain misleading information?

[Logos]

What are your thoughts on those that deliberately edit Wikipedia for fun so as to make it contain misleading information?

I am not a fan of it, but if the topic is important or geeky enough for people to actually care about it, the truth will rise to the top as people seek to correct the information past the patience of those who would subvert it.

[Exodus]

What are your thoughts on those that deliberately edit Wikipedia for fun so as to make it contain misleading information?

Stupid and annoying, but sometimes hilarious.

[Logos]

What are your thoughts on those that deliberately edit Wikipedia for fun so as to make it contain misleading information?

Stupid and annoying, but sometimes hilarious.

I love those. I am also a fan of the Wikipedia Edit Wars. One of my favorites was simply a page about a dish and the Edit War was between whether or not the side dish was either Chips (the Brits) or French Fries (the Americans) though it is not on the Lamest Edit Wars page.

[Blaze]

I love Wikipedia.

Heck yes.

yes. you can get a great quick snapshot of anything on wiki. plus they'll usually have links to other places where you can find out even more about what you're looking for.

[Logos]

I love Wikipedia.

Heck yes.

yes. you can get a great quick snapshot of anything on wiki. plus they'll usually have links to other places where you can find out even more about what you're looking for.

Oh and the links within a topic on other topics! It is like pure electronic stream-of-consciousness.

[Elro]

Oh and the links within a topic on other topics! It is like pure electronic stream-of-consciousness.

Try this: http://everything2.com/

[Exodus]

What are your thoughts on those that deliberately edit Wikipedia for fun so as to make it contain misleading information?

Stupid and annoying, but sometimes hilarious.

I love those. I am also a fan of the Wikipedia Edit Wars. One of my favorites was simply a page about a dish and the Edit War was between whether or not the side dish was either Chips (the Brits) or French Fries (the Americans) though it is not on the Lamest Edit Wars page.

Be bold!

Oh and the links within a topic on other topics! It is like pure electronic stream-of-consciousness.

Try this: http://everything2.com/

Ah, yes. Wikipedia's retarded cousin.

(Actually, that would probably be this.)

[Elro]

What are your thoughts on those that deliberately edit Wikipedia for fun so as to make it contain misleading information?

Stupid and annoying, but sometimes hilarious.

I love those. I am also a fan of the Wikipedia Edit Wars. One of my favorites was simply a page about a dish and the Edit War was between whether or not the side dish was either Chips (the Brits) or French Fries (the Americans) though it is not on the Lamest Edit Wars page.

Be bold!

Oh and the links within a topic on other topics! It is like pure electronic stream-of-consciousness.

Try this: http://everything2.com/

Ah, yes. Wikipedia's retarded cousin.

(Actually, that would probably be this.)

Hey hey, come on now. I like Uncyclopedia.

As for Everything2, it may be less formal, but if you start following the links you can quickly balloon out to an impressive number of tabs/windows, effectively wasting way too much free time.

[machintruc]

couldn't Wikipedia be rather Gamma or Delta ?

[Logos]

couldn't Wikipedia be rather Gamma or Delta ?

Because of the ""?

[Exodus]

Don't laugh.

couldn't Wikipedia be rather Gamma or Delta ?

Good question. I have considered Delta, partly because its founder Jimbo Wales looks rather INFj...



...and partly because of the tendency for touchy-feeliness in its policy (take this, for instance), and of course the mere fact of it being an encyclopedia, a repository of information from other sources (Te > Ti).

Whatever it is, it's at a max for Ne/Si, the most perfect realization of anarchy in existence.

[Exodus]

Actually, Jimbo could be ENFp. Or maybe ESTj. He looks Delta, at least.

[Logos]

But the structure, style, and nature of Wikipedia caters very much to Alphas. And while it is a repository of information (), it is not taken very seriously as such, but merely as a source for the general idea of it. It is not by actuality, but by democracy, which sounds like something which would potentially drive -types crazy.

[Exodus]

But the structure, style, and nature of Wikipedia caters very much to Alphas. And while it is a repository of information (), it is not taken very seriously as such, but merely as a source for the general idea of it. It is not by actuality, but by democracy, which sounds like something which would potentially drive -types crazy.

Good point.

The subjectivist, in contrast to the objectivist, is not inclined to deduce/derive "objectively accurate" laws and regularities (Summarizing/generalizing for this purpose their experiences and those of other people). Instead assumes that other people have different criteria, different views, therefore defines/treats another's actions as either accurate or incorrect, necessarily doing it with a "subjective" determining factors ? evaluates in accordance to a personal system, "their system", actions, intentions and so on. Subjectivist are inclined to propose (Or to impose) not the "correct way" or some other way to do things ? but general concepts on how to perform actions i.e. they do not say "Do it this way!" they say "Look at it this way!". They do not consider, in contrast to the objectivist, that in every situation there exists only one "objectively correct/true" way of doing something ? in any situation, in their opinion, there are many ways one can act, approach/view the situation. When they feel something was done in an inappropriate manner they will most likely ask: "What is this?" (In contrast to the objectivist who will most likely ask "Who did this?"). When they speak of optimality they speak of optimality within a framework of the concept, they use a subjective approach (Form the point of view of being more optimal compared to what). Therefore they attempt to contrast other people's views to their own and to explain their position (To verify concepts): "If it is like that them we shall do this, it is different ? we'll do something else"

Wikipedia is under a constant struggle to include various points of view and interpretations (regardless of the NPOV policy).

[Nevero]

Good question. I have considered Delta, partly because its founder Jimbo Wales looks rather INFj...



...and partly because of the tendency for touchy-feeliness in its policy (take this, for instance), and of course the mere fact of it being an encyclopedia, a repository of information from other sources (Te > Ti).

Whatever it is, it's at a max for Ne/Si, the most perfect realization of anarchy in existence.

in his old typing thread IEE has been brought up several times

[krieger]

i'm thinking more of things like TVTropes when envisioning an alpha style open encyclopedia; wikipedia really seems too serious in both the common and the socionical sense of the word.

i don't doubt it has a lot of alpha editors, though.