Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Article: The Six Sins of the Wikipedia

(1/4) > >>

mouser:
interesting article

It is a question of time before the Wikipedia self-destructs and implodes. It poses such low barriers to entry (anyone can edit any number of its articles) that it is already attracting masses of teenagers as "contributors" and "editors", not to mention the less savory flotsam and jetsam of cyber-life. People who are regularly excluded or at least moderated in every other Internet community are welcomed, no questions asked, by this wannabe self-styled "encyclopedia"

Six cardinal (and, in the long-term, deadly) sins plague this online venture. What unites and underlies all its deficiencies is simple: Wikipedia dissembles about what it is and how it operates. It is a self-righteous confabulation and its success in deceiving the many attests not only to the gullibility of the vast majority of Netizens but to the PR savvy of its sleek and slick operators.
...

--- End quote ---


http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11109




from NewsForge

Rover:
He makes some good points.  I never really paid that much attention to how Wikipedia works, but the absolute anarchy of it, is pretty stupid IMHO.  :down:

Let it die, I say.

housetier:
Just the excerpt contains many strong words. I am not sure if I want to read on...

I tend to say: "it's free, so why do you complain?" Of course "free" doesn't justify "bad", but "commercial" definitely implies "good". If I want super-service I pay the super-service-fee.

It's a good thing nobody is forced to exclusively rely on wikipedia.

Gothi[c]:
Wikipedia does seem to self-correct quite rapidly just because it can be edited by anyone.

At least for now. The number of people trying to provide usefull content seems to outnumber the trolls - sofar. Just wait till advertising companies discover wiki's. (Pay-per-post anyone?)

Just don't rely on wikipedia for accurate information,- which goes for just about anything on the internet.

I still think it's a nice collection of centralized information sofar. When it really becomes a problem I guess they could just disallow anyone from editing and add stricter moderated account-rules.

Carol Haynes:
It's an interesting question ... I read an article a while back that suggested Wikipedia was at least as accurate (and more comprehensive) as Encarta and Britannica. It also showed the history of a page from inception (very brief sketch) to date (very comprehensive) complete with all the mindless graffitti and vandalism along the way. The good guys seemd to fix any vandalism within seconds !

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page