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?”
Amen.
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…
Amen.
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!