Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous Things I can name | My Career Choices Next »
Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous Things I can name | My Career Choices Next »
Submitter doesn’t know what they’re talking about. *citation needed.
Maybe a Wikipedia reference would help!
__
Interested in a GifAway?
Are we talking about Americans? If so, the correct answer is brainless pundits on biased news media outlets (right and left).
haha vicious albiet somewhat true. The American media is awful, but I believe that at least some of the American public have yet to be brainwashed.
That is why I joined the Brain Slug Party.
Not like those educated Europeans who make sweeping generalisations about entire countries of people. jackass.
oh snap!
It was a sweeping generalization (note how I spelled that) made by an American about Americans. Nice try though.
He actually spelled it correctly as well. Had you spent less time trying to be a jackass, you probably would’ve picked up on it as well. Nice try though.
The “s” instead of a “z” is what parksj1 meant. You almost made a good comeback. Nice try though.
hey americans may be stupid and fat and pollute the air but we are definetly not brainless are brains are like ummm the size of a walnut and are as smooth as babies skin no ridges in our brains
Someone who believes Wikipedia would believe that Wikipedia is a person.
Oh ye of little faith.
hahahaha. Sort of like Webster of dictionary fame.
Hasn’t this one been done many many many times before? wait, I’ll check wikipedia to make sure.
The guy who submitted the graph just edited the Wikipedia entry to say that this graph had never been submitted. Wait 5 minutes though, someone will change the entry to say it was submitted once, by a llama.
lol OP is getting pwned. That’s what you get for making such a stupid graph… referring to wikipedia, books and websites as people
Books, websites and Wikipedia need to be written by people.
Your point would be more valid if the graph maker had referred to Wikipedia/book/website writers as people.
The person who created and submitted the graph is clearly a moron, but why did so many people vote for it? Are there that many people who mistakingly think that wikipedia is an accurate source (not person) for information??
Umm… if you actualy follow up with the citations and such you’ll find a good amount of it is accurate. It’s like any other informatios source: use more than one.
i am a strong wikipedia beliver
There should be a slice for random e-mails sent by unknown persons. Those are always true.
I’d point out some mistakes I’ve found on wikipedia, but they’re all fixed now. I fixed a few of them myself. Sometimes I only knew that something was wrong, but not how to fix it. In those cases, I just comment on the talk pages.
The best part about wikipedia, is if you misspell something or use the wrong “their” there, the mistakes get fixed almost immediately.
The problem with wikipedia is that much of it is based on “common knowledge” which is really just common misconception. The mistakes aren’t limited to simple grammar or misspellings. There are entries that have large amounts of erroneous information that people widely believe to be true, but that is in fact false.
The amount of “common knowledge” out there is the reason why Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources. Anything without an accompanying source can be challenged or even removed without question.
I am glad that you realize the best thing is that simple grammar mistakes get corrected. With most reference web sites, people would generally claim the best thing about the site is the accurate, useful information.
And it is. As a Wikipedia editor myself, I get angry when some moron comes along and adds random stuff in without any proof. I’ve completely rewritten two articles to make them far better than they were. Now, two articles out of almost three million isn’t much at all. But consider that Wikipedia has nine million registered users. Not all of them are active, but if as many that are active try to make the site as best as they can, the site will move from strength to strength. The fact that anyone can edit is most Wikipedia’s greatest weakness and its greatest strength. Nowhere else in the world is there an encyclopaedia that encompasses so much and, while some things might not be that great, Wikipedians are always trying to make it better. Compare to a printed encyclopaedia: once it’s printed, that’s it. Even if the information is wrong, it can’t be changed. Wikipedia can and often rapidly is. I dare you to find a site that has anywhere near the amount of useful and accurate information that Wikipedia has.
You’d be surprised how many people believe that most of Wikipedia is garbage. It can be oppinionated at times. That’s the main problem I have with it. Other than that, I don’t think there’s much to disagree with. Correct me if I’m wrong.
You’re wrong.
Most of the information on Wikipedia is correct. Unfortunately, any percentage above 50% counts as “most”. Even if it is 96% accurate, that is not good enough for supposed reference material.
*facedesk*
Wow, really?
What is your source for those numbers?
“The Daily Mail headlines ” is missing.
WIKIPEDIA IS PEOPLE TOO!
It’s people. Wikipedia is made out of people! They’re making our misinformation and half truths out of people! Next thing they’ll be breeding us like idiots for inaccuracies. You’ve gotta tell them. You’ve gotta tell them!
I agree with the graph. Although Wikipedia is not a person, I tend to look towards it for general information.
I’m intersted in all kinds of stuff.
Aren’t pie charts supposed to represent percentage? A bar graph would better suit this idea. Plus, this is a joke that’s been done way too many times.
How do these graphs keep getting posted?
Wrong graph type. I don’t believe 10% of professionals, and 66% of Wikipedia. lrn2graphjam
These are the only “people” the creator believes in ^^ Poor guy. I don’t tend to trust professionals tho’, because they are usually VERY biased, even more so that wikipedia. I’ve tried to watch some American documentaries lately and I find them highly biased either for the left or the right (and crappy in quality overall. All they have is silly easytocomprehend language and visual effects).
I never knew Wikipedia was a person!
thank you I thought the same thing and did this face O_o when I saw that
Forgot “idiots on Fox News” and “idiots with misspelled signs outside town hall meetings” and “idiots who stand up in town hall meetings and scream BIRTH CERTIFICATE SOCIALISM DEATH PANEL COMMUNIST AAAAAAGGGGHH” which would make up 99.9% of the circle.
Wikipedia isn’t a person. It should say things you believe.
Well, that is only true if it agrees with you. if you prove someone wrong, they say that a raving lunatic must have edited it.
Oh ye who hath not faith in humanity… the “wikipedia” and “professionals” slices really should be switched. Sure it wouldn’t be funny, but it would be true.
Epic fallacy FTW!
shouldn’t the graph be titled “things you believe” wikipedia is not a person lol. nice graph btw
your right Wikepedia is not a person Wikepedia is god
Here’s the wikipedia definition of wikipedia
Wikipedia (pronounced /ĖwiĖkiĖpiĖdi.É/, WEE-kee-PEE-dee-É or /ĖwÉŖkÉØĖpiĖdi.É/, WI-ki-PEE-dee-É) is a free,[5] web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning “quick”) and encyclopedia. Wikipedia’s 13 million articles (three million in the English Wikipedia) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site.[6] Launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger,[7] it is currently the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet.[3][8][9][10]
Critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies (including undue weight given to popular culture),[11] and allege that it favors consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[12] Its reliability and accuracy are also claimed to be an issue.[13] Other criticisms center on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information,[14] though scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived,[15][16] and an investigation in Nature found that the material they compared came close to the level of accuracy of EncyclopƦdia Britannica and had a similar rate of “serious errors”.[17] These claims have been disputed by EncyclopƦdia Britannica;[18] Nature in turn published a rebuttal to Britannica’s objections.[19]
Wikipedia’s departure from the expert-driven style of the encyclopedia building mode and the large presence of unacademic contents have been noted several times. When Time magazine recognized You as its Person of the Year for 2006, acknowledging the accelerating success of online collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, it cited Wikipedia as one of several examples of Web 2.0 services, along with YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook.[20] Some noted the importance of Wikipedia not only as an encyclopedic reference but also as a frequently updated news resource because of how quickly articles about recent events appear.[21][22]