Typewriter Ramble #1

Thanks to Dylan, who recently offered to give me a typewriter he had sitting around from some suburban garage sale many years back, I have acquired a typewriter. I guess Facebook truly can be a good social networking tool. I posted something to the effect, "John Purcell wants to get a typewriter," as my Facebook status. Shortly later Dlyan offered the gift. Who would've thunk it? I certainly didn't, but, thanks again!

Besides a new ribbon and maybe some small maintance it should be really set. I am not sure how to get the musty smell off it though. Even the paper I typed onto reeks of this musty smell. It is not the worst smell, though, kinda homey.

After a Gonzo Imperial Porter, Miller High Life and two White Russians (with extra vodka) I sat down with the typewriter at Dylan's house while other friends conversed around me. I am not sure what exactly I was going to write when I sat down, but I just wanted to nail out something. Whatever the typewriter made me feel — for better or worse.

This made me think that I might have certain reoccuring posts just be whatever I ramble out on the typewriter. Hence the name for this post, "Typewriter Ramble #1," so maybe there will be more in the future, but here is the first.

You have no heart ... he is the golden boy of your sick shit.

What does the boy want from his father? The golden goose of sincerity that grows under his father's pathetic job of regret. The man said yes to his offer, for he had nothing to hide from his son. He gave him the gold he desired and he didn't shed a tear. He was only full of hope for the future of his family — he could not see the scum bubbling into his mouth. Yes, the scum does rise.

Wikipedia Test

For a long time I wondered how long it would take Wikipedia to edit an addition I would make to an entry that was either utterly wrong or offensive. I am not sure it was the most ethical experiment, but it was an interesting one.

In less than 12 hours, I am not sure exactly how long it took, all of the additions I made to Wikipedia was edited out. Also, I received a warning about being banned permanently from the pages I was editing. The Christopher Columbus page I got temporarily banned from, till early December, which meant I could not edit it for a couple weeks. The other pages I am not sure of, because I would only make one crazy edit, so the punishment was not as severe. My answer for the most part, to the question of how is Wikipedia policed, seems to be rather diligently. This is not saying that pages are not biased and do not have errors, but at the least it seems the administrators of Wikipedia eliminate, rather fast, any "vandalism" to their pages. Who knew someone actually was an administrator on Wikipedia? That must be a pretty boring job and I wonder if they even get paid?

Professors always point out the fact that anyone can go in and edit it, which is valid and troublesome at times, but I am not sure how long an inaccurate edit will stay. Something that is just blatantly wrong or biased seems like it will be taken off in a short amount of time. That sort of levels the reliability of the information. The best thing I have found to use Wikipedia for is finding more information on a topic. At the end of an entry there are related links and links to cited information. This usually leads me to where I want to go, so while I don't use what is on it, often you can get pointed in the right direction.

I would like to further test the reliability of Wikipedia, but my account will eventually just get banned from making any edits if I continue. I would have to make more accounts and continue to make more edits to truly find out how Wikipedia works, but that is something I do not have the interest to do.

In the end, look at a real encyclopedia, because that is done by experts and not a kid in high school.