I was mulling over a response to the response to the latest Wikipedia ugliness, but now I don’t have to, thanks to Alan.
I am tired of the WikiPedia flogging going on- yes the issue is worth discourse, but it seems to be the only conversation now, and what is being lost in the wash, is the un-heralded, social software fueled human explosion that pushed WikiPedia out there, that created an explosion of information. So is only important thing to be “right”, “factual”, “trusted” as opposed to having a voice in the conversation?
The whole current discussion seems flawed in being polarized; it seems unwise to gloss glowingly on WikiPedia without acknowledging the flaws and inherent issues of mass written content, but it also seems unwise to dismiss the whole process because a smaller number of &$^%ing idiots are pissing in the well.
Can I get an “Amen?”
John Pederson says
Christopher Harris says
Even more interesting is the “class action lawsuit” being proposed against Wikipedia that seeks to profit from people beating up on Wikipedia. (http://schoolof.info/infomancy/?p=114)
Sure, it isn’t perfect, but “Jimbo” had an idea and ran with it. The code is open source, so if I really think they have screwed up the concept, I could download MediaWiki and create my own…
Mario Asselin says
I just want to report a post, http://carnets.opossum.ca/mario/archives/2005/12/wikipedia_un_si.html (sorry… it’s in french), about a conference from Jean-Claude Guédon who linked with this issue. Does we have to see Wikipedia as a simple product for human consumption or a process which carries out the citizen towards knowledge ?
Let’s move-up folks!