Utah – it’s not that far anymore!

Wow. According to Wikipedia, Utah is not that far from Massachusetts. If it’s where they claim it is (according to the map), I could drive to Provo in six and a half hours.

Evidence (in case someone over at Wikipedia notices):
Screenshot of Wikipedia (about Utah)


Tags: , , ,

9 Responses to “Utah – it’s not that far anymore!”

  1. This is why I’ll never be able to take wikipedia seriously. At any given time, you have no idea whether what it says is true, unless you have prior knowledge, in which case you didn’t need wikipedia in the first place. I’ve always been fascinated by it, but I’ll never be able to think of it as more than just a neat idea.

  2. Brion Vibber says:

    Wikipedia-the-wiki is a way of building Wikipedia-the-encyclopedia. The wiki is a live view on a work in progress, not a finished product… If you ran all your software from CVS snapshots you’d find surprising mistakes from time to time as well.

    The project is still very young as encyclopedias go, and published, vetted releases are a ways away yet. This isn’t a dirty secret; it’s just an iterative process done in the open.

  3. I didn’t know that “Wikipedia-the-wiki” was merely a way to build an encyclopedia, I was under the impression that it WAS an encyclopedia.

    > The wiki is a live view on a work in progress,
    > not a finished product

    That’s exactly my point, and as long as it’s a public wiki it will never be a finished product. But if they’re planning to eventually disable the public input then that would change things.

  4. Garrett says:

    I’ve found that it’s usually pretty accurate and that errors (like this one) rarely show up. It is a nice place to do research to discover some tidbit of information you may have not known before (and one that you could most likely find elsewhere on the ‘Net too, for fact-checking).

    It’s all a matter of trust in the information and source of the information, whether it be on the ‘Net in general, a specific website, or even something as simple as a book from your local bookstore really, though.

  5. From the FAQ:

    Wikipedia is both a product and a process. Even if the product is not yet perfect, the process ensures that at the end of every day, the encyclopedia is higher quality than it was at the beginning of the day.

    That’s simply not true, unless by “higher quality” they just mean “bigger in size.” If at any given time, from say 1.5%-2.5% of the statements in Wikipedia are false, then there’s no reason to believe that “at the end of the day” there are fewer errors/intentional lies than at the beginning of the day. Fixing errors/lies is not the same as lowering the rate of incoming errors/lies.

  6. That’s true about trust in general, and since the cost of putting false/incorrect information on Wikipedia is much lower than the cost of doing so in a published book or a website that you actually went to the trouble to (possibly pay for and) create, I will generally trust Wikipedia less than other sources.

  7. Chris [flip] Mecca says:

    So technically I live in Utah now? I wonder if the taxes are lower?

    Chris Mecca
    Jessup, Pennsylvania

  8. Garrett says:

    True; newspapers and magazines typically have full-time fact-checkers and editors.

  9. Josh Hansen says:

    Only if you have atleast 10 children and 3 wives. 😉