Slashdot Mirror
A Look at the Editorial Changes on Wikipedia
prostoalex writes "New York Times Technology section this weekend is running an extensive article on Wikipedia and recent changes to the editorial policy. Due to high level of partisan involvement some political topics like George Bush, Tony Blair and Opus Dei are currently either protected (editorials are allowed only to a selected group of Wikipedia members) or semi-protected (anyone who has had an account for more than four days can edit the article). From the article: 'Protection is a tool for quality control, but it hardly defines Wikipedia,' Mr. Wales said. 'What does define Wikipedia is the volunteer community and the open participation.'"
Is that the NYT now cares about any "open" anything. In 20 more years, they might even vaguely get the concept.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Curbing vandalism is not about "fighting" them; how about not creating them through officious and arbitrary administration? I imagine that the vast majority of your "vandals" are people who should be contributors but were handled rudely.
Perhaps some disagree with the concerted effort to suppress or soften anything that could possibly lead a reader to believe that not everyone in the world is a hard left trotski-ite. Censorship is the first choice are the hard-left academic.
Now watch this post get modded "overated" by a lefty who rails against any censorship but his own.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
Wikipedia is free information, Fuck can't have that now, can we just like the Free music. lets get this stright, this is just a waste of time and tax pays money for globelized bullshit of the capitalist whores that run are goverments. If we have to we will go underground just like music to get are free information illegally or legally. Just give up plz internet is here to stay and information (even if its in binary) will always be free and no group and no person can stop it.
Comparing an encyclopedia to an airplane in this manner is silly
It's a metaphor. Look it up. Preferably not in Wikipedia where it might have badgers in it.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
It's always a good idea to assume that a management and development technique that works well (or not) for creating a general encyclopedia should be equally well-suited to the construction of a complex, manufactured, physical artifact. Have you ever had the following conversation at the hardware store--and if not, why not?
"This is a terrible hammer! It does an awful job installing screws!"
Then let me turn the metaphor right back to you. Just because you can hold a hammer does not mean you should be involved in the design or construction of buildings. You get experts. You check their bona fides.
But with factual information and data for some reason, any anonymous idiot's point of view will do. The funny thing is that you don't have to believe what it says, but the law of averages will produce someone who will.
And--I hate to break it to you--he was right to say so. I know of professors who will fail a student for citing any encyclopedia article in a reference, even if the information cited is factually correct.
The point was that the information in Wikipedia was wrong - they were being dinged because of that, not because they cited Wikipedia.
Incidentally, Wikipedia articles tend to be better about providing citations to primary sources; Britannica seldom does so.
You're obviously reading a different website to the one I'm reading. Not only are more sources missing (because largely they don't exist in the first place) but some of the citations are wrong or incomplete or of dubious provenance. Britannica produces reams of source citations. The worst thing of course is that an interesting article may be half finished or missing critical information which means
[This post is a stub. You can help Slashdot by completing this post]
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question