BristolSaint Posted 17 February, 2014 Share Posted 17 February, 2014 I know it is never a 100% reliable source but usually wikipedia is pretty accurate. I just took a look to see if there was any information under Southampton FC for the latest debutant Sam McQueen. There is as per the link below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_F.C.#First-team_squad but also if you look, there is no Schneiderlin in the squad, but there are a few names of players (Kamara, Deeney, Johnson, Cabella,Necid etc) of players currently playing for other teams???????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
for_heaven's_Saint Posted 17 February, 2014 Share Posted 17 February, 2014 The entire concept of Wikipedia is that it can be edited by anyone. By the same reasoning, if no one edits it, it stays the same. Hence why it is never a reliable source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrensup Posted 17 February, 2014 Share Posted 17 February, 2014 Right, so someone has ****ed about with the page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 17 February, 2014 Share Posted 17 February, 2014 I know it is never a 100% reliable source but usually wikipedia is pretty accurate. I just took a look to see if there was any information under Southampton FC for the latest debutant Sam McQueen. There is as per the link below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_F.C.#First-team_squad[/url but also if you look, there is no Schneiderlin in the squad, but there are a few names of players (Kamara, Deeney, Johnson, Cabella,Necid etc) of players currently playing for other teams???????? ??... don't know what you're looking at but it looked OK on my screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nta786 Posted 17 February, 2014 Share Posted 17 February, 2014 Right, so someone has ****ed about with the page. Basically this... The other day, Englands national team had a bunch of Indian players in it :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 17 February, 2014 Share Posted 17 February, 2014 I know it is never a 100% reliable source but usually wikipedia is pretty accurate. I just took a look to see if there was any information under Southampton FC for the latest debutant Sam McQueen. There is as per the link below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_F.C.#First-team_squad but also if you look, there is no Schneiderlin in the squad, but there are a few names of players (Kamara, Deeney, Johnson, Cabella,Necid etc) of players currently playing for other teams???????? Wikipedia is one of the least reliable websites in the world (unless it provides good citation) as it can be edited by anyone on the planet. I could within seconds if I wished list BristolSaint as the Southampton goalkeeper on Southampton's wikipedia page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 17 February, 2014 Share Posted 17 February, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BristolSaint Posted 17 February, 2014 Author Share Posted 17 February, 2014 Wikipedia is one of the least reliable websites in the world (unless it provides good citation) as it can be edited by anyone on the planet. I could within seconds if I wished list BristolSaint as the Southampton goalkeeper on Southampton's wikipedia page. Or the Argentine "Adam Lallana" in the squad alongside the reall lallana, with a link to the Lionel Messi page... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 17 February, 2014 Share Posted 17 February, 2014 Wikipedia is one of the least reliable websites in the world (unless it provides good citation) as it can be edited by anyone on the planet. I could within seconds if I wished list BristolSaint as the Southampton goalkeeper on Southampton's wikipedia page. You could of course do what you say, however Wiki moderates the changes and therefore any vandalism such as this would be undone. Hint, always check the version history, the changes that were being seen earlier were amost certainly being done by a Skate on a windup. People think "anyone" can make changes in Wiki, its true to a point, but only registered editors can make changes that remain in place when reviewed for authenticity. Sometimes it takes a day or so before the vandalism is caught and resolved. Its usually pretty obvious, the user who was vandalising the page yesterday made lots of edits, and they have all been undone. I don't recall his handle now but it was quite obvious it was just a moronic attempt at humour by someone who does not understand how the system works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 17 February, 2014 Share Posted 17 February, 2014 Wikipedia is one of the least reliable websites in the world (unless it provides good citation) as it can be edited by anyone on the planet. I could within seconds if I wished list BristolSaint as the Southampton goalkeeper on Southampton's wikipedia page. He wouldn't be any worse than Gazzaniga though surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cat Posted 17 February, 2014 Share Posted 17 February, 2014 I'm going to edit myself in to the Saints squad and turn up to Upton Park on Saturday and demand a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BristolSaint Posted 18 February, 2014 Author Share Posted 18 February, 2014 He wouldn't be any worse than Gazzaniga though surely? You clearly have never seen me play. I would make Tommy Forecast look good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 18 February, 2014 Share Posted 18 February, 2014 Wikipedia is one of the least reliable websites in the world (unless it provides good citation) as it can be edited by anyone on the planet. I could within seconds if I wished list BristolSaint as the Southampton goalkeeper on Southampton's wikipedia page. Can you point out one thing on there which is provably untrue that has been on there for more than one day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 18 February, 2014 Share Posted 18 February, 2014 (edited) Can you point out one thing on there which is provably untrue that has been on there for more than one day? On the St Mary's stadium wikipedia page for many years was a sentance that the awarding of the Rugby World Cup would help fund an expansion, which is nonsense. Edited 18 February, 2014 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 18 February, 2014 Share Posted 18 February, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_F.C. Portsmouth Football Club i/ˈpɔərtsməθ/ is a professional football club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 18 February, 2014 Share Posted 18 February, 2014 ˈ/pɔərtsməθ/ ? I think that should be /ˈpɔərtsməf/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedFear Posted 18 February, 2014 Share Posted 18 February, 2014 Wikipedia is one of the least reliable websites in the world (unless it provides good citation) as it can be edited by anyone on the planet. I could within seconds if I wished list BristolSaint as the Southampton goalkeeper on Southampton's wikipedia page. except studies suggest wikipedia is actually about as reliable as the encyclopedia britannica its like saying the bbc site doesnt work because you found one broken link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 18 February, 2014 Share Posted 18 February, 2014 except studies suggest wikipedia is actually about as reliable as the encyclopedia britannica its like saying the bbc site doesnt work because you found one broken link Key part of my post which you have overlooked was... "unless it provides good citation". If a wikipedia article links each point to a reliable source, then I have no problem with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedFear Posted 18 February, 2014 Share Posted 18 February, 2014 Key part of my post which you have overlooked was... "unless it provides good citation". If a wikipedia article links each point to a reliable source, then I have no problem with it. even with that caveat the comment 'least reliable website in the world' was clearly nonsense. unless you are saying every fact on that massive site without good citation isnt true. you are not saying that are you!? as with my previous example. its like you have said 'the bbc site is down! (except all the pages and links that are working)' anyway, i have already used 2 posts on this. and even im bored now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now