Continue to Site

Welcome to our site!

Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

  • Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

non-encyclopedic topics (opinion)

Not open for further replies.


I have numerous reasons why i do not use wikipedia.

such as, "criticism of Microsoft" is not encyclopedia, but "opinion".

also many official subjects, and entities, as well famous people, have their own websites, more than never, only 2nd or 3rd after the wikipedia entry.

I had difficulties to accept the new trend of devices apparently having security screws, but I have now accepted it.
They simply do not want "anyone" to tamper with the equipment.
not all designs are "opensource" or "public domain".
so at least, you'd have to pay $30 to get the tools for the security screws.

I am almost sure at wikipedia they won't rate such tactics as beneficiary towards them.

seriously, if I add my circuit approaches, I get blackmail about "original research". on the other hand, somone, not say anyone, can add or edit articles about WIN7, a product that's not even released.

I think they should outsource all non-encyclopedic material, and delete the article, if there is an official website or web page.

it is not just obscure if they cementate some technical principles found in old teaching books, and on the other hand, stop people from adding real-world information.

it is also contraproductive especial for technical innovation.
do you want to see designers and engineers stifled by 100s of wikipedia policies what they should and should not do (if it is only, not to use HTML)?

I have recently learned, most of the people who look up entries are not professionals who deeply work on the subject, but factoids.

or would you like inaccuracies to creep into genetics research? how can there be NPOV when the full potential of GM foods is not yet fully tapped or known. means, there is no objective truth, or what some editors belive, especially since edits can go on anonymously, would be the truth. it could be deadly poison wrongly folded DNA, and later on after many people died, we'd learn it was cobbled together by 20 people from here and there using some proxy DNS web access.

could, in a worldwide war, some powers emerge to use all the information against western civilization?
would you say, labelling this "encyclopedia" a roadmap for terrorism would be too ambiguous for this forum?

I do not say that, but have read it somewhere on the net.

All i want is to make you able to be a little critical of wikipedia, and do not blindly trust it.
I do not suggest anyone not to use it.
All I say that I do not look up entries at all.

I expect praising statements of some, that it would be soo useful, or even the disappearance of the thread. but that's up to the follow up contributors, not up to me, or giving judgements about my own personality.

on the other hand you allow Microsoft to be labelled evil, while in the case you'd be working inside that company, you'd not attract much democratic argumentation, guess.

don't we openly know that Monsanto with a certain grin sells aspartame products, and this makes young American kids unhealthy?
would it be NPOV? or conspiration theory?

you'd allow discussion of that topic, on the other hand you will maybe defend wikipedia, and attack my personality. who knows?
I like Wikipedia but I acknowledge that it isn't perfect.

Neutral Point Of View? Is it even possible to write something that's completely unbiased?

As much as they try to avoid it Wikipedia will reflect the opinions of those who created it. Why should you be surprised that they have an article criticising Microsoft? They're a load of Linux loving MS haters.

With regards to aspartame: they try to represent the current scientific consensus, same with climate change.

If you think it's a conspiracy then maybe you should add to the conspiracy theories section.

Wikipedia was started as an Encyclopaedia but it's grown since then and become an on-line bank of knowledge. Sister projects such as Wiktionary and Wikinews have sprung up. The trouble is there will always be information which doesn't fit into any of the aforementioned and is still worthy of note so must go somewhere. The question is where?
That's why critical thinking and cross referencing exists. Don't look up anything on Wikipedia that you know absolutely nothing about. You should never "LEARN" anything from a Wiki. Refresh maybe...look for neat graphics to explain to someone else. Or use the Wiki explanation when you deem it is adequate because you don't feel like retyping everything out again to someone else.
Last edited:
Don't forget that other Encyclopaedias can contain errors. The disadvantage with Wikipedia may be that anyone can write an article even if they know nothing about it is also it's greatest advantage. Normally it take years for errors in Encyclopaedias to be corected but Wikipedia can be corrected in minutes.
It's no different if someone came up to you and told you the same information. It might be accurate, might not, but it's one more piece of information.

Anyone who accepts the first piece of information they find on a new subject has much larger issues than where the information came from. This is nothing new in the world. It did not start with Wikipedia, and will not end with it. To single out Wikipedia, especially since it's a single website among millions of millions, is like singling out Microsoft for writing crappy software. Most software is crappy, and not from Microsoft.
Last edited:
Since joining the site I have had more mental exercise than I have had in years! :eek:
I often see people argue against something based on some principle that they feel says why something should not work. I dont take their word for it but rather go and read up on the principal and the actual history of the origin of the principal as well.;)

There are loads of misquoted and mis used principles and what not that get tossed around all time and the person tossing them is often further off from the truth than the person they are trying to put down with it!
Read several sources and the actual history of something before you take it as a gospel truth! You could end up making yourself look like a real dumbass if you dont!
thank you folks. the truth is, whathowever wikipedia may tone down over the next years, it is unlikely that it will disappear completely.

so even the people who do not like it, will have to learn to live with it.

I consider carefully what I really say about them myself, originating from my own opinion, and not just stuff I have read somewhere on the net.

so I think, when i say, wikipedia could be used as a roadmap for lockpicking,
it is not that offensive
, but it can be true in some cases.

because (here a sentence I've synthesized an hour ago) "knowledge which has been extracted from it's natural context, mixed, cobbled, and sweetened with saccharine."

We will have to learn to live with (sort of rogue) content providers like wikipedia, the same way we have to live with the product offers of saccharine sweetened foods in supermarkets.

I mean, i tried drinks concentrates for a while, but then stopped, because I just did not feel good continuing to use them.

there are couple of things which are unbearable, such as wikipedia or wikipedia admins would be above the law, and can not accounted legally for anything. and for instance, you can not sue wikipedia in Florida.

well, people can, and people, or let say entities, have sued Microsoft, in order to extract money. if wikipedia is not that money-rich, how could it be accounted otherwise?

it is important to establish understanding what wikipedia is, not just what they call themselves, but what they are indeed causing.
partially wikipedia has replaced the internet as such as we know it, where previously, and still remaining possible, people, anyone, have been able just to add web pages to the internet!
free, sponsored, or paid regularily. It is not that everyone would be lacking any form of money, and would be unable to pay 30 dollars.

suggesting that no one would even be able to pay 30 dollar is an enourmous threat. I mean, if the majority of people is using free software, effectively you won't even be able to buy commercial software. see for instance, Venezuela. can they buy commercial software, even if they really wanted to?
they use LINUX everywhere (as far as I know from a news article).


the bit in the picture is apparently self-made, so it is some form of primitive lock picking, not illegal in any form, but a rogue practice.


  • security_bits.jpg
    68.2 KB · Views: 215
in 2004 i bought a £30 Pentium III computer.
never tried to claim one of these free laptops.

I'm pretty much a realist, not a space boy.
Would it make sense to have a domestic charity in order to protect Antilopes?
At least I would have to live in Africa myself, guess.
Read several sources and the actual history of something before you take it as a gospel truth!
It depends on what you're talking about.

History can be very subjective for example if I were to say "The 9/11 attacks are the US's own fault because of their intervention in the Soviet - Afghan war.", if you disagreed, we could have a big argument about it and not get anywhere because our interpretation of the facts differ. Not that I necessarily support that point of view: I think that the US may have helped the rise of the Taliban but to say the 9/11 attacks are 100% their fault is a gross simplification.

Engineering it different, most of the time something works or it doesn't and one thing is clearly superior to another but there are exceptions.
Last edited:
Sorry point not valid!;) Quote was taken out of context!:(

What I am referring to in that paragraph is when people try to back up their argument against something by mis using or incorrectly applying an engineering or mathematical principal that does not actually fit the argument or is outdated and does not accurately describe a theoretical equivalent of the real device or concept.

Lets just say I made an electric motor of some sort. I claim its 98% efficient as tested. Then some one jumps in and says thats impossible because the Carnot cycle clearly states that it cannot be that efficient!

Fair enough. Except the Carnot cycle was created in the 1830's to mathematically calculate theoretical efficiency limits of steam engines!:eek:

It has no practical application on this type of device I have created! ;)
Didn't you know about the 11/11 attacks?
Its the best world government cover up in history! :eek:

its the reason North Dakota only has 630000 people now. And Rhode Island is an island now. :(
My state had millions of people and Rhode was a state nearly the size of Texas with 1/3 of the US population living there.

Canada completely caught us off guard on that one! Its why we need passports to cross into Canada now. They dont want Americans coming in illegally. We are like lazy whinny illegal Mexican immigrants to them.:(

We dont sneak in illegally for work opportunities we just want health care for free!:D
Sorry, I meant 9/11 or even 11/9 which is the correct way.:D

Don't know where I got 11/11 from, oh that was the gunpowder plot but that was way back. :D
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

New Articles From Microcontroller Tips