|
goto page | next >>
|
|
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Post subject: Weston's Wikipedia "Triva"Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:27 pm 
Trivia - Weston is sponsored by C & C Custom Drums and plays a custom C&C kit with a blue sparkle finish. - Is the most badass member of Eisley/the DuPree family. - Has a christmas band with friend Tim Brooks of LuvBeat known as The Fog Breathers. - Wants Chad Gilbert's babies more than Sherri does. Is closest with sister Stacy DuPree, as she is not a whiny bitch like Sherri. Weston's birthday is two days before his girlfriend Jessica's. - May or may not have been the genius behind the invention of Hip-Hop. Confirmation from his rep is in progress. - More than thrilled with sister Sherri's engagement to Brian Lane of Brand New, as it means she's moving out. - Pities Jesse Lacey for the same reason as above. - Dislikes when cousin Garron takes something he enjoys/planned to eat. - Eats a lot of candy. A few of those are no longer there. Obviously they are false. 
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 | Posts: 20735 |
|
|
  |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:11 am
It's also one of the most accurate free second hand sources around. So much bogus means that it also gets so much policing done by experts in the field (Nora in this case), all through volunteer hours. Don't cite it as a scholarly source, but it's basically about the most perfect collaboration on the internet since it's inception: it's useful, self-sustaining, self-policing, and almost always up to date. _________________ EisleyForever wrote: you're A-list in my heart! MAKECOLDPLAYHISTORY |
|
|
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 | Posts: 8868 | Location: Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age
|
|
    |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:15 am
DRMS_7888 wrote: It's also one of the most accurate free second hand sources around. So much bogus means that it also gets so much policing done by experts in the field (Nora in this case), all through volunteer hours. Don't cite it as a scholarly source, but it's basically about the most perfect collaboration on the internet since it's inception: it's useful, self-sustaining, self-policing, and almost always up to date. Pretty much. Everytime something bogus happens over there, Eisley fans are all over it and it gets corrected. It's not perfect, and it can contain false information. But the false is usually corrected in short order. |
|
|
Joined: 17 Dec 2005 | Posts: 7525 | Location: Wisconsin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: Weston's Wikipedia "Triva" Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:22 am
patrock wrote: Trivia
- Is the most badass member of Eisley/the DuPree family. can that one stay there? it's totally true. _________________ http://thegirlinthebearhat.tumblr.com/ |
|
|
Joined: 04 Dec 2004 | Posts: 2702 | Location: central new york, massachusetts, london (soon)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: Weston's Wikipedia "Triva" Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:30 am
dont_panic wrote: patrock wrote: Trivia
- Is the most badass member of Eisley/the DuPree family. can that one stay there? it's totally true. I might have left it. Don't remember.
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 | Posts: 20735 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:37 am
CUBSWINWORLDSERIES wrote: DRMS_7888 wrote: It's also one of the most accurate free second hand sources around. So much bogus means that it also gets so much policing done by experts in the field (Nora in this case), all through volunteer hours. Don't cite it as a scholarly source, but it's basically about the most perfect collaboration on the internet since it's inception: it's useful, self-sustaining, self-policing, and almost always up to date. Pretty much. Everytime something bogus happens over there, Eisley fans are all over it and it gets corrected. It's not perfect, and it can contain false information. But the false is usually corrected in short order. exactly. It's one of the most accurate and comprehensive sources on the web. Much better than random people's webpages with intense bias and little useful information. (I found this out while working on a paper about Stevie Ray Vaughan.) |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2005 | Posts: 5051 | Location: TX/NYC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:43 am
The best way to get accurate information is to look for multiple sources, anyway. For smaller/lesser known things, Wikipedia has been far worse as far as accuracy, from what I have seen. For more prominent things, it tends to be as intended. I see it as a situation of saying, the Holocaust, having myriad contributors, thus drowning out naysayers and those with less popular theories from the entry. Wheras, Eisley's contributing fans do not quite as heavily outweigh vandals/the less knowledgeable at their current level of prominence. Of course, verification with other sources never hurts in any case. I'm a big Wikipedia fan overall, though I definitely use it more as a guide and as a gateway to more "proper" sources. And as a way to pass a lot of time learning about useless things. _________________ My photography:www.jamiemphoto.com You can't spell awesome without emo...backwards! -Julie definingawesome (11:44:11 PM): Eisley shivers our timbers |
|
|
Joined: 15 Aug 2003 | Posts: 25185 | Location: East Texas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:49 am
TheAntrider wrote: The best way to get accurate information is to look for multiple sources, anyway. For smaller/lesser known things, Wikipedia has been far worse as far as accuracy, from what I have seen. For more prominent things, it tends to be as intended. Of course, verification with other sources never hurts in any case. I'm a big Wikipedia fan overall, though I definitely use it more as a guide and as a gateway to more "proper" sources. And as a way to pass a lot of time learning about useless things. Oh yeah. The "References" and "External Links" sections at the bottom of the page are very useful as well. |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2005 | Posts: 5051 | Location: TX/NYC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:00 am
vivalaspopie wrote: TheAntrider wrote: The best way to get accurate information is to look for multiple sources, anyway. For smaller/lesser known things, Wikipedia has been far worse as far as accuracy, from what I have seen. For more prominent things, it tends to be as intended. Of course, verification with other sources never hurts in any case. I'm a big Wikipedia fan overall, though I definitely use it more as a guide and as a gateway to more "proper" sources. And as a way to pass a lot of time learning about useless things. Oh yeah. The "References" and "External Links" sections at the bottom of the page are very useful as well. Definitely. _________________ My photography:www.jamiemphoto.com You can't spell awesome without emo...backwards! -Julie definingawesome (11:44:11 PM): Eisley shivers our timbers |
|
|
Joined: 15 Aug 2003 | Posts: 25185 | Location: East Texas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:23 am
TheAntrider wrote: Of course, verification with other sources never hurts in any case. I'm a big Wikipedia fan overall, though I definitely use it more as a guide and as a gateway to more "proper" sources. And as a way to pass a lot of time learning about useless things. Yeah, I should have said something like that. Also, that it's generally much faster than trying a google search. _________________ EisleyForever wrote: you're A-list in my heart! MAKECOLDPLAYHISTORY |
|
|
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 | Posts: 8868 | Location: Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:02 am
TheAntrider wrote: The best way to get accurate information is to look for multiple sources, anyway. For smaller/lesser known things, Wikipedia has been far worse as far as accuracy, from what I have seen. For more prominent things, it tends to be as intended. I see it as a situation of saying, the Holocaust, having myriad contributors, thus drowning out naysayers and those with less popular theories from the entry. Wheras, Eisley's contributing fans do not quite as heavily outweigh vandals/the less knowledgeable at their current level of prominence.
Of course, verification with other sources never hurts in any case. I'm a big Wikipedia fan overall, though I definitely use it more as a guide and as a gateway to more "proper" sources. And as a way to pass a lot of time learning about useless things. And no professor would accept a paper made up of only Wikipedia sources. Anyone who considers Wikipedia the ultimate information hub is fooling themselves. That having been said, it is a whole lot of fun to just explore the place. Technically you could say that anyone can put crap on any other information website (Metafilter is a group blog; BoingBoing and its ilk have run misinformation plenty of times before). That's the Internet for you. _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
|
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:25 am
TheAntrider wrote: vivalaspopie wrote: TheAntrider wrote: The best way to get accurate information is to look for multiple sources, anyway. For smaller/lesser known things, Wikipedia has been far worse as far as accuracy, from what I have seen. For more prominent things, it tends to be as intended. Of course, verification with other sources never hurts in any case. I'm a big Wikipedia fan overall, though I definitely use it more as a guide and as a gateway to more "proper" sources. And as a way to pass a lot of time learning about useless things. Oh yeah. The "References" and "External Links" sections at the bottom of the page are very useful as well. Definitely. It would be wise to check out the discussion section too. _________________ Power is only pain It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in. "Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self preservation?" -memo from 1952 Project ARTICHOKE 
|
|
|
Joined: 19 Aug 2004 | Posts: 10565 | Location: Somewhere in the middle of nowhere
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:04 am
Yeah, Wikipedia is actually quite resourceful for basic knowledge of a multitude of things. Really the only ones that get messed with are celebrity profiles and they're not exactly important. Plus, as mentioned above, it's policed very well. I made false Wiki's as a joke and the first which wasn't believable or done well was gone within minutes, and the second, much more believable one, was gone within an hour. Every time you edit a page, it's looked over. _________________ Albert Camus wrote: Always go too far, because that's where you'll find the truth. |
|
|
Joined: 04 May 2007 | Posts: 3862 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:22 am
Wikipedia can be slightly useful. On the other hand it can be a pretty pathetic source to retrieve information from. The fact that anyone can put up anything on there makes it all the less reliable. _________________ There's an airplane in the sky With a banner right behind Loneliness is just a crime Look each other in the eye |
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2007 | Posts: 326 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:24 am
Wikipedia can be slightly useful. On the other hand it can be a pretty pathetic source to retrieve information from. The fact that anyone can put up anything on there makes it all the less reliable. _________________ There's an airplane in the sky With a banner right behind Loneliness is just a crime Look each other in the eye |
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2007 | Posts: 326 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laughing City Forum Index -> eisleyBlog -> Weston's Wikipedia "Triva"
Page 1 of 2 goto page | next >>
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
|
