While chatting with a fellow SEO (whose identity I concealed, just in case he doesn't want his screen name public) over IM, I noticed that certain words were being underlined in green. When I hovered my cursor over an underlined word, I got a little pop-up definition, courtesy of Wikipedia. They even defined what "haha" meant (I slapped a border around the especially amusing part of the definition):
.jpg)
So
that's what the extra "ha's" mean! How very insightful!
Unfortunately, there's still a little problem with context:
.jpg)
Not quite sure this guy meant "going to go to the Genesis YM2612," but I could be wrong..
P.S. As
Oilman pointed out in the comments, this feature has apparently been around for a while, but I'm a slow loser so oh well.
For being so webified, Wikipedia clearly doesn't speak SEO....
everyone knows that GYM stands for Google, Yahoo!, and MSN
which also makes the statement "gtg to the gym" much more logical.
Clearly not an authority on SEO.
Rebecca - did you just upgrade Trillian? They've been doing that forever at this point.
You can turn it off in the options.
Jimmy Wales does not deserve to be in my IM world ;)
Yeah, I figured I'd probably be slow on the uptake with this, but I found it amusing nonetheless.
> Jimmy Wales does not deserve to be in my IM world
jimmy wales and his lackeys don't deserve to be in anyone's IM world. or more accurately, no one deserves to have jimmy wales and his lackeys in their IM world by default.
more and more, the quality of wikipedia makes anyone who references it suspect, to me, in terms of their willingness to actually think about a topic and do some research. people who use wikipedia references as a default are like people who eat fast food all the time just because it's fast, cheap and ubiquitous - not the healthiest choice over the long term, and indicative of laziness.
and in general, not so fast and not all that cheap.
So by that standard, not necessarily accurate or authoritative is acceptable.
I turned mine off shortly after the feature showed up. It's actully a nice idea, but as evidenced by this post doesn't always work and I generally found the whole thing more annoying than it was worth.
Is anyone else concerned that Wikipedia is taking over the internet? I love it as a resource, but it's clearly monopolizing as we speak...
Surely its not just the internet? Here's a (rather sad) little game for you to play. Count the number of times you see Wikipedia or Google used to define a word or phrase in offline media over the course of a week.
For every time that you see an example of this, drink a beer on Friday night. You'll be so plastered that you won't be able to remember the fact that people are swapping truth for popularity - eh voila, blissful ignorance!
;)
Best
Idea
Ever
Almost as good as the game (which doesn't work anymore) of watching the darts and picking a player each. For every drink they take, you take a drink too. By the time they've thrown their 3rd dart, you're absolutely leathered.....
Aha, so that's what Trillian is doing nowadays (I suppose that is Trillian as confirmed by Oilman). I'm satisfied with my AIM + DeadAIM mix. Nothing intrusive in my communications -- yet.
There's also always gaim which also integrates several IM apps and doesn't include Wikipedia mouseover madness.
I suppose as more and more applications -- i.e. Trillian -- become more mainstream, you'll see folks, like Wikipedia, take an interest in telling you "what's what" (claiming to be definitive?). Not so with some other lesser known IM apps, which suits me just fine.
Oh, Rebecca. I wondered why you'd written "Tough Titties You Loser" at the end of our last conversation. Now I understand why one should not believe everything one is told on Wikipedia.
Oh. It must be Friday afternoon if it takes me this long to recognize TTYL. That or it's the famous brand of Kiwi humor.
PS. "Fush and Chups" ^_^
Brilliant - I love Kiwis.....
Dude, why are you spelling "recognise" with a "z"?
And are they broadcasting the Melbourne Worlds on TV there?
:P
Let's see which is more common according to Google ...
recognize or recognise
I may have just missed an inside joke or two, but clearly the "z" form is more popular in writing styles.
It reminds me of optimization or optimisation ... although I see now Google recommends it with a "z" instead of "s" as the more common spelling.
American is with a Z (because Yanks can't spell) British is with an S (because we can)
I see the British have it down ... I mean just look at all the fun words you have!
Surely when we ask Google to spell for us, the end is truly nigh.. (see my other comment below)
They couldn't even spell googol for God's sake!
;)
So you'd like to tell me that harbour and aluminium are incorrect to, would you? America's prefectly entitled to use whatever spelling it likes, but please let the rest of us use ours!
hehe, the first result on Google for both harbour and aluminium are Wikipedia definitions!
Google is not the source of all knowledge either... as someone who's commenting on an SEO site, you should know that :)
Calm down there, no need to feel challenged by me. I was only pointing out the fact that wikipedia is on each of those pages, not once did I mention Google was all knowing, or that any of the info I posted was valid. Thought that was clear. As someone who moderates an SEO site you should have caught that! J/J
I don't feel challenged by you, eCopt. I believe this thread highlights one thing: neither America, Wikipedia, Google nor anyone is the source-of-all-knowledge on anything, and thus, the first two (at least) should stay out of other people's business.
:)
Well said and I agree Jane!
Except for us Brits - we do know everything!
;)
They're entitled to be wrong, just like everyone else!
Take a look at at recognise on Freedictionary. Read the first 'verb' definition and how they use it in the two sentence examples. lol
Guess that's why it's the FREEdictionary, you get what you pay for!
BTW, wikipedia has a spot on the first page of that term too.
As I've written before, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the Wikipedia idea (I think it's great). I just think they need to make it more obvious that everything on that site is written by non-experts.
That wording is a little unfortunate. Better would be:
"I just think they need to make it more obvious that noteverything on that site is written by experts."
No, I think that he had it 1st time!
Ah yes Wikipedia...the bestest site ever.
https://www.overheardintheoffice.com/archives/004016.html
LOL, nice example.
Since it's not hyperlinked, here it is for the rest of you:
3PM Why Pot Is Still Illegal Numbers guy: Wait, where did you get these numbers from?
Boss: Wikipedia.
Numbers guy: We can't use those numbers!
Boss: Why? Only reliable people post things there so it's okay to use the numbers in the report to the FDA.
St. Louis, Missouri
Who keeps thumbing this post down? Hmm.
Maybe Mr Wales doesn't have anything better to do.....
Haha! But seriously, I think Rebecca highlights a good point about Wikipedia taking over various parts of the net that it shouldn't.
Although there are arguments that faulty information is generally removed from the site, this post proves that its information, right or wrong, is seeping out of its site's pages and into print media, onto people's IM screens and into the public at large as an authoritative voice. Which it isn't.
And so I don't see why it deserves so many thumbs down.
I wouldn't read too much into the accuracy of the thumb system here yet. I can't say forsure and haven't been around to see for long, but I notice the first comment on nearly every post (blog/youmoz) usually has quite a few more up thumbs than any other comments further down the page (oops did I let the cat out).
I know there are the regulars, who mostly would know how and when to use the feature, but I think others may be skipping over the first option to vote and may just be seeing the first comment rating thumbs. Make sense? I know I have seen some that are great comments far down the list that have a lot of votes, but you guys should look back and see if there is maybe a better way to seperate the post rating from the look of the comment ratings.
I wasn't referring to the comments in this case, but the thumbing down of the post itself. I think the phenomenon of people paying more attention to the comments at the top isn't unique to this site - the first comment on Digg usually either has +30 or -30 diggs and it goes down from there. It's usually just laziness: scrolling down is too hard!
Ahh yes, I realize this and you made an excellent point about Digg. However, if I accidentally overlooked the post rating thumbs and immediately the first ones I saw were the first comment thumbs (since the post thumbs blend in to the bottom of some posts) it may reduce the amounts of thumbs up (or down) for the post itself. Unless I went back and "made up" for the mistake. I doubt users would do that though, especially if they are the ones too lazy to scroll.
I'm sure there are some who are thumbing the way some might be digging and giving thumbs up automatically to early comments, but for the most part I think the system is working pretty well. There are definitely some comments I would have thought would get more thumbs up or less or maybe more or less thumbs down, but most of the time it's easy to understand why a comment was or wasn't given a thumb.
No voting system is perfect. In fact no system is perfect. I think the thumbing system here is meant mostly to keep us all more engaged and interactive with the site and to reward people for interacting. I think it's doing both.
I know it's not perfect, but a few thumbs in one direction or the other that aren't deserved isn't going to throw things out of whack. in a few months we're all going to have more points and then each individual thumb up or down takes on less significance. I think time will be a sort of self correcting factor.
And in the end I think the whole thing is meant more to be fun than anything else. It's not a perfect system, but there have been more comments and more interaction between members since it was put in place. There's been a strong feeling of community here since I started reading a year ago, but I think it's gotten stronger over the last couple of months and isn't that the point.
Here's a good current example of bad wiki info ...
Sinbad is dead?
I think the entry was referring to his career.
I think maybe it's Digg-think (thumbing up/down without really reading). As a few people have pointed out, the Wikified version of Trelliean has been around for a while so I think some people glance at the content and think, "this is way out of date," and thumb down automatically without taaking the time to consider the point being made.
That or everyone just hates Rebecca. //ducks//
That would make for a good sitcom...wait, no it wouldn't. :*(
If "anonymous Rebecca" had posted this in YouMOZ would it be picked up to the main blog? That's my question. And, I think, the answer to yours.
Given SEOmoz's hatred of Wikipedia's dominance, I'm absolutely sure we would have loved it.
Yeah, but I enjoy my "I work for SEOmoz and can put subpar stuff on the main blog that may not be as relevant as Super Rand's posts" status.
Damn right - milk it for all its worth!
And what do Sega Genesis sound files have to do with the Gloucestershire Training Group (GTG)? You SEO's have some crazy lingo.
Haha, that's funny. I forgot I turned that off long ago, it got really annoying!
Here's an example of video hypermedia insertion in emerging media.
What do think of this type of embedded linking?
Look out for an eBay API advertising GYMs and 'what not' in your IM software. Coming soon to screen near you. Hahahaha....ha
I like the wiki feature, even with wikis subjective bahavior.... Hopefully gaim will add this to its small plugin list, for im trying to use all open-source software now, rather than feeding the torrent-addiction.
Yeah Trillian has been doing this for a while. I am also seeing a few websites doe the same thing either with Wikipedia or their own database of terms. I particularly like it on medical sites (but not when it uses the Wiki def'n).
How useful are incorrect definitions though? Collective wisdom can be incorrect - could we not be introducing a degredation fo the language
or is it just an evolution.
Oof - my brain just hurt. Too deep a thought for a Friday afternoon with the sun shining and a yummy treat next to me on my desk!