Wikipedia's Wales: Damn the advertising, full speed ahead

Vikingod · Feb 16, 2007, 02:47 AM

Source: Ars Technica
__________
The drama llama has been making his usual rounds of the Internet, kicking up a minor dust cloud about Wikipedia's funding model. A blog report on Wikimedia Chairwoman Florence Nibart-Devouard's recent speech in Geneva alleged that Nibart-Devouard warned audience members that Wikipedia could "disappear" once its current three-to-four month funding cushion runs out. Bruno Giussani laid out the real, less dramatic facts, but the story has revitalized an ongoing debate about Wikimedia's current ad-free existence. Is it sustainable?

~~DudeBoyz~~ · Feb 16, 2007, 02:57 AM

Can't trust anything you see on Wikipedia thanks to the biases of the article reviewers that edit out content that they don't personally agree with. They also tend to push their own agendas instead of trying to keep a neutral stance.

If Wikipedia goes away, they are a victim of their own arrogance.

Zelig · Feb 16, 2007, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeBoyz

Can't trust anything you see on Wikipedia thanks to the biases of the article reviewers that edit out content that they don't personally agree with. They also tend to push their own agendas instead of trying to keep a neutral stance.

I don't get why there's so much ill-will towards wikipedia. Their information isn't academic-quality, but neither is any other encyclopedia with any broad collection of information.

Do you even have any examples of a wiki page with such problems? Actually, I challenge you to find a page which you think is flawed. Provided that it isn't already labelled with a POV warning, a cleanup warning or with uncited sources warnings, I'll personally edit the page to fix it for you.

~~DudeBoyz~~ · Feb 16, 2007, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zelig

I don't get why there's so much ill-will towards wikipedia. Their information isn't academic-quality, but neither is any other encyclopedia with any broad collection of information.

Do you even have any examples of a wiki page with such problems? Actually, I challenge you to find a page which you think is flawed. Provided that it isn't already labelled with a POV warning, a cleanup warning or with uncited sources warnings, I'll personally edit the page to fix it for you.

You challenge ME???

Do it your damn self.

There are tons of examples all over the web and usenet. That's why some other dude started a Wikipedia alternative site already:

Citizendium

Quote:

The Citizendium (sit-ih-ZEN-dee-um), a "citizens' compendium of everything," is an experimental new wiki project. The project, started by a founder of Wikipedia, aims to improve on the Wikipedia model by adding "gentle expert oversight" and requiring contributors to use their real names. It has taken on a life of its own and will, perhaps, become the flagship of a new set of responsibly-managed free knowledge projects. We will avoid calling it an "encyclopedia" until the project's editors feel comfortable putting their reputations behind this description.

Why necessary

We believe this project is necessary, and justified, because the world needs a more reliable free encyclopedia, which we hope to create by allowing people a place to work under the direction of experts, and by expecting personal accountability--including the use of real names. In short, we want to create a responsible community and a good global citizen.

Zelig · Feb 16, 2007, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeBoyz

You challenge ME???

Do it your damn self.

Well, I was going to do all the article editing necessary, all you would have had to do is find an article that needs it.

I suppose I could just assume you weren't able to do so.

Tinkerhell · Feb 16, 2007, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zelig

I don't get why there's so much ill-will towards wikipedia. Their information isn't academic-quality, but neither is any other encyclopedia with any broad collection of information.

I agree. If you are citing wiki sources for your doctorial thesis then you get what you deserve. But if you are just trying to find out what a web footed three toothed arabian lemure is for your 6th grade paper it's great.

And the whole point is if you find something you think is wrong you change it. Post your reason & sources why it's wrong. I personally find wiki very useful & entertaining.

Feb 16, 2007, 02:47 AM	#1
Vikingod Int'l Fish Liaison Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: By the light of lamp I sit and type... Posts: 16,197 Rep Power: 112 System Specs	Wikipedia's Wales: Damn the advertising, full speed ahead Source: Ars Technica __________ The drama llama has been making his usual rounds of the Internet, kicking up a minor dust cloud about Wikipedia's funding model. A blog report on Wikimedia Chairwoman Florence Nibart-Devouard's recent speech in Geneva alleged that Nibart-Devouard warned audience members that Wikipedia could "disappear" once its current three-to-four month funding cushion runs out. Bruno Giussani laid out the real, less dramatic facts, but the story has revitalized an ongoing debate about Wikimedia's current ad-free existence. Is it sustainable?

Feb 16, 2007, 02:57 AM	#2
~~DudeBoyz~~ banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,677 Rep Power: 0	Can't trust anything you see on Wikipedia thanks to the biases of the article reviewers that edit out content that they don't personally agree with. They also tend to push their own agendas instead of trying to keep a neutral stance. If Wikipedia goes away, they are a victim of their own arrogance.