Comments on: Wikipedia or Wackypedia? http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7916 p2pnet.net - reader powered Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:00:38 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7916/comment-page-1#comment-34337 Reader's Write Thu, 16 Feb 2006 04:12:55 +0000 #comment-34337 What's more troubling about Wikipedia than the petty vandalism are the ideologues. Any PR firm can pay to have their employees spend hours on end editing Wikipedia. As such, some of the more sophisticated ones have become very established and influential there, so Wikipedia has a strong bias on a number of issues. What’s more troubling about Wikipedia than the petty vandalism are the ideologues. Any PR firm can pay to have their employees spend hours on end editing Wikipedia. As such, some of the more sophisticated ones have become very established and influential there, so Wikipedia has a strong bias on a number of issues.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7916/comment-page-1#comment-34320 Reader's Write Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:07:59 +0000 #comment-34320 Just as Wikipedia contains some errors, the media also gets things wrong. The difference is that journalists are paid to be right, whereas Wikipedians do it out of their own free will. No-one is "recruited" to Wikipedia, the supporters decide to do it for the good of the encyclopedia. And there are significantly more than 1000 of them. Most of these articles fail to mention that most edits by vandals (hilariously referred to by The Times as "hackers") on prominent articles are reverted within minutes if not seconds. To be honest, i'm surprised that the article on Blair is only edited 25 times a day. Its not many at all when you consider that Blair runs the country and so is prone to school-boy remarks by opposers. They arent helping by promoting Wikipedia as "the online equivalent of throwing eggs". Its like pointing out the graffiti around the streets and telling people that "anyone can do it, just grab some paint and join in the fun!" Just as Wikipedia contains some errors, the media also gets things wrong. The difference is that journalists are paid to be right, whereas Wikipedians do it out of their own free will.

No-one is “recruited” to Wikipedia, the supporters decide to do it for the good of the encyclopedia. And there are significantly more than 1000 of them.

Most of these articles fail to mention that most edits by vandals (hilariously referred to by The Times as “hackers”) on prominent articles are reverted within minutes if not seconds. To be honest, i’m surprised that the article on Blair is only edited 25 times a day. Its not many at all when you consider that Blair runs the country and so is prone to school-boy remarks by opposers.

They arent helping by promoting Wikipedia as “the online equivalent of throwing eggs”. Its like pointing out the graffiti around the streets and telling people that “anyone can do it, just grab some paint and join in the fun!”

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7916/comment-page-1#comment-34283 Reader's Write Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:45:06 +0000 #comment-34283 Most people will find that much of the information in Wikipedia is accurate. Futhermore, as an encylopedia, Wikipedia should not be the end of research; it should be the beginning. Encylopedias are third or secondary sources, and in order to gain a better understanding of events, one MUST look to primary sources. Most people will find that much of the information in Wikipedia is accurate. Futhermore, as an encylopedia, Wikipedia should not be the end of research; it should be the beginning. Encylopedias are third or secondary sources, and in order to gain a better understanding of events, one MUST look to primary sources.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7916/comment-page-1#comment-34269 Reader's Write Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:05:47 +0000 #comment-34269 The first line of this story is wrong, but as the news reports have got it wrong as well, p2pnet can't really be blamed. Wikipedia is written and run by volunteers, so much more than a "1000 volunteers" are already around and some have taken to checking out what other questionable edits have been made to articles about politicians. The Boston Globe just did a really good series on Wikipedia (http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/). The first line of this story is wrong, but as the news reports have got it wrong as well, p2pnet can’t really be blamed. Wikipedia is written and run by volunteers, so much more than a “1000 volunteers” are already around and some have taken to checking out what other questionable edits have been made to articles about politicians. The Boston Globe just did a really good series on Wikipedia (http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/).

]]>