171–180 of 200 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something similar happened when a Google Street View image of a chap being 'seen to' by a prostitute soared in popularity a few years ago in my home town. The name of the street was, for a few hours, known as 'handjob ally'.
Was this the one in Manchester city centre by any chance?
The culprit is here: http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=66&ptab=1&uid=200619129451... That guy finished his 'masterpiece' after multiple edits less than 24 hours ago.
He apparently got a "skype" logo through too: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lahore+District,+Pakistan/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, never use Wikipedia for anything. Since everybody can change it, it's useless.
Wikipedia is actually pretty bad, try following up on any of the references. If they're web references, the chances of it being a 404 page are almost 100% in my experience. Not to mention the editors being almost all white men and the opaque process that limits most "non-male" topics: http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-college-classes-... Wikipedia is basically infotainment, the Buzzfeed of encyclopedias. Se…
Wikipedia may have problems, but I'm not sure how this particular issue is a mark against it. Wikipedia's editorial resources aren't limited in the same way as a traditional publication. It's not like curtailing "frivolous" subjects will result in better quality "serious" articles: the people who write Star Wars articles are not going to take up medieval history if you prevent them from editing their favorite subjects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you essentially have to be a Google employee to do this? I remember a few years ago when I annotated some custom maps, but no one ever saw my annotations publicly. Also my annotations were running routes and forest trails that weren't marked on maps at the time.
I submitted a fix to google maps, where they were forcing people to detour around a perfectly straight section of rural highway because it was marked as impassable. Imagine my surprise when I got an email ONE YEAR LATER saying "your revision has been accepted!"
I filed that as a bug and it sat for years without correction.
Don't use OpenStreetMap they said, anyone can edit that and vandalised it they said, it will be full of errors and inaccuracies they said.
Also, never use Wikipedia for anything. Since everybody can change it, it's useless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it makes me sad how people actually enjoy feeding a proprietary data silo instead of providing their knowledge to everyone for free in open projects.
shrug they are making the best map better. I can see why you disagree, but it's pretty understandable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I submitted a fix to google maps, where they were forcing people to detour around a perfectly straight section of rural highway because it was marked as impassable. Imagine my surprise when I got an email ONE YEAR LATER saying "your revision has been accepted!"
i had the same experience with two different roads in chicago area where it would avoid a simple overpass on 55, instead advising to take exit, go around in a longer route and come back to 55. Only in the east / North bound direction. Another one in Schamburg where it thought a left turn was not allowed at a big intersection. both were corrected on my report, but after a year or so
Not trying to invalidate these other experiences at all, and my own may not be representative, but apparently they can move fast at least sometimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Wikipedia is no substitute for a real subject encyclopedia. Who says it is? It's for quick pointers.
A subject encyclopedia will have much better pointers, definitely real citations, often annotated citations. What "serious" purpose does Wikipedia serve, other than being a timely source for things that haven't made it into a subject encyclopedia yet?
A kid in India can hop from physiology, to psychology, to medicine, to anthropology, to geography, to history, to economics, to... Do you get the point?
I guess we shoould just plug wikipedia off and stick a giant banner that says "Wikipedia is not sufficient for scientific inquiry, so we closed it. Go buy Thomson Web of Science."
I'm sure Maadhav in India will be very happy and rest assured that no incomplete information is on the Internet.
Another gem here :) https://www.google.pt/maps/place/Takht+Pari+Forest/@33.50087...