Comments on: Wikipedia

By: Dr David Hill

Dr David Hill — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:45:41 +0000

Up to 9 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more, for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison with our own at that time - using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is documented by themselves.
Thereafter we even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, ‘Jimbo’s second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is ultimately at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.

For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails will be part of our next web newsletter ‘Scientific Discovery’. It will be on-line by the end of July 2007. Overall, it is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with ‘Jimbo’ and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to ‘Jimbo’s’ opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball home and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time - the web link is http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk.

Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity (reg. no. CH-035.7.035.277-9 - 11th July 2005)
Bern, Switzerland

By: Ta bu shi da yu

Ta bu shi da yu — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:14:15 +0000

Just so you all know, Lir is a disgruntled former Wikipedia editor, and Igor runs an anti-Wikipedia website that can be found at:

http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi

I’m not saying they are bad, or their points are even invalid. I’m just saying it to make people well aware of who is posting commentary.

BTW, Woohookitty does great work on the site, so does Angus. I find the implication that their work isn’t very good because they have odd usernames… strange, to say the least.

Heck, my username is possibly the oddest, and I think that I write articles that are useful to people!

TBSDY

By: Igor Alexander

Igor Alexander — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:43:01 +0000

I liked this sentence:

“Must we wet the reeds of the musician, or can it be a good thing that some play and some listen?”

I also thought the following paragraph was right on the money:

“In fact, throughout the United States, many people have access to more encyclopedias, databases, and other quality resources than they realize, because in thousands of communities librarians license these tools on their behalf but do a bad job marketing their availability. Think if the efforts going into Wikipedia were redirected into user education and promoting existing high-quality information sources!”

The question your paragraph raises in my mind, and that I’ve always wondered when conversing with the average Wikipedian, is why is it necessary or even desirable to build an encyclopedia from scratch? What’s wrong with the encyclopedias that already exist? What does Wikipedia have to offer - as an encyclopedia - that previous encyclopedias couldn’t match, or even exceed?

Anyone who wishes to discuss these topics further is invited to do so at The Wikipedia Review, my newly-founded message board. The URL is http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/

By: Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lirath Q. Pynnor — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 03:42:32 +0000

Have quoted this article at: http://www.kapitalism.net/thoughts/wikipedia.htm

By: No Oil For Pacifists

No Oil For Pacifists — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:30:28 +0000

Karen:

Citing you, I’ve posted a history and critique of Wikipedia.

http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2005/06/open-source-closed-minds.html

By: Chris Rippel

Chris Rippel — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 04:59:38 +0000

Comparing information about literature between a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia and a literature database like Gale Literature Resource Center is comparing apples and oranges and is unfair to Wikipedia.

Comparing Wikipedia with Encyclopedia Britannica is more appropriate and fair. Neither Wikipedia nor Encyclopedia Britannica, online or my 2004 CD version, have articles on Gretel Ehrlich.

Wikipedia appears no worse than Encyclopedia Britannica in this test.

Chris Rippel
Central Kansas Library System
Great Bend, Kansas

By: Kim Bruning

Kim Bruning — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 21:15:23 +0000

Wikipedia is still a bit patchy in sections, surprisingly, even though it is currently larger than Britannica and Encarta combined. That’s true, hence your strange experience with the literary figure. (Though I know some people with literary knowlege are adding new high quality articles in that field every day now)

What people often have trouble getting their heads around is NPOV. NPOV is actually exactly the thing you were contrasting it with. It’s not a single monolithic opinion, but rather a policy that often means for people to (wait for it) present every single different possible view!

see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV#What_is_the_neutral_point_of_view.3F

For an example, view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Descriptions_of_Earth

Did you see it? Until quite recently at least, there have been groups of people who still believed the earth was flat. A proper application of NPOV reports that such people exist, and that they hold that opinion.

By: lbr.library-blogs.net

lbr.library-blogs.net — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 12:36:09 +0000

Subversive gardening

I’m really glad that Karen Schneider has taken the time to share in-depth her perspective on Wikipedia — because after I heard her interview on the "Wikipedia" episode of Chris Lydon’s new radio show Open Source, I just didn’t get where

By: Angel

Angel — Tue, 31 May 2005 13:36:06 +0000

This is probably the best and most thoughtful piece on the objections to Wikipedia I have seen. I think you point out well that for them to be so resistant to criticism is too bad. They are too young to have hardened arteries already. As an Instruction Librarian, I constantly cope with helping my students evaluate as well as find the best information to suit their needs. While I find the Wikipedia experiment interesting, it is certainly not a resource I would recommend to anyone in the academic community. Does that make me a gatekeeper? Likely, but like you, I feel better about the label, and I am proud to to be a subversive librarian. Thanks for the good argument and the inspiration.

By: Joseph Reagle

Joseph Reagle — Mon, 30 May 2005 16:07:55 +0000

Pruning

Pruning The Professional Lurker notes an article by the FreeRange Librarian which identifies the important role of deleting/removing material of dubious quality. This function, too, exists in the Wikipedia: Votes for Deletion. Otherwis