Call for DEFCON beta testers

[myshangnet]

<I'm a spammy git, and I'm also banned.>

[myshangnet]

<No, really, you're still spamming, and you're really banned.>

[Luigi300]

Wikipedia is made up of you and me, i.e. ordinary users (and a big bag of to many power-hungry admins), so the info is rarely directly from the horses mouth, if ever.

So only ever take wiki-entrys for what they say on historic events, never current or future.

Luigi will eat you.

I EAT YOU

[Gravitron]

Wikipedia is lame.
Its users are lamers.
Accuracy and facts are its victims.

[Babylon5]

Well, I have my laptop back. Yay.

[xyzyxx]

Yay.

[Babylon5]

Thanks for that.

[Dimension Jump]

Are the beta applications now closed or can people still sign up for if more testers are needed in the future?

[aaronh]

This looks like a pretty cool game so far

[Azati Prime]

Wikipedia is lame.
Its users are lamers.
Accuracy and facts are its victims.

Wikipedia is just as accurate as Britanica for scientific facts. Much of it is actually correct. If you're researching anything important you should always confirm it but I've used it for a lot of projects.

[xander]

Wikipedia is just as accurate as Britanica for scientific facts.

Which is why, if you are writing a paper, you should never cite an encyclopedia. They are often a useful place to begin -- they summarize a topic, and provide citations to primary sources (or at least to sources that cite primary sources). The Handbook of North American Indians, published by the Smithsonian years ago, is a great place to start research -- the articles in this encyclopedia like series are all written by experts in their geographical areas. I would never cite The Handbook in a serious paper, however. It, like all other encyclopedias, is not there to provide in depth information for research.

Having said that, I am disinclined to trust Wikipedia for anything even remotely controversial. The editors do their best, but there is no one that can actually be held accountable if information is incorrect, or vandalized. There is too much potential for misinformation (especially in politics -- how many Congressional aides are tasked with editing their bosses Wikipedia entries?).

xander

[shinygerbil]

Wikipedia, at least to my eyes, is just an ego pimping ground with a lot of biased articls, but some usefulness in its basic information (i.e. starting points, but nothing more).

[Phydaux]

There is no media that is not biased. At least with wikipedia there is the oppertunity for all sides to be published so a neutral point may eventually come across.

And as xander mentioned, encyclopedias are not the place to base research on, it does however give you the opertunity to start somewhere. The decent wikipedia articles have external links and citations to confirm the details provided.

[Sonic Alpha]

Signed up, here's hoping

[quiksilver]

Signed up as well now...

... did anybody past the first wave of selected beta testers actually got selected again? Like 2 weeks ago or so?
Just wondering if introversion even selects people applying 3 month after the call.
Well... hoping... ;)