|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
> Not to mention its updatedness for current information that would not have made its way to traditional reference sources yet.
Yeah, this is where a lot of the arguments against wiki fall down. Kevin Hall writes:
"... a true encyclopedia is an enormous undertaking ...Single entries may take months to write before they are even sent for review by people with legitimate expertise."
Okay, but it's not an encyclopedia though, it's wikipedia, and its a good reference tool in the sense that entries link to a broad range of useful and 'reliable' sources which can be directly accessed. So even if you question the entire content of wiki - every word - show me a vastly better free tool (online or off) for finding an overview of resources on a subject. There ain't many. Search engines don't fit the bill. Besides, a good portion of the current event information is embedded from participating sites - they must be evaluated on their own merits within the frame of wiki.
Another Register article comments 'Wikipedia is fast becoming the number-one online resource for web surfers ...in what must be a sad comment on the ability for traditional news media to keep its audiences well-informed.'
Look at what is on offer as general resources for viewing current news items - Google News, Yahoo, newsbots, etc. None of these are as simple and well laid out as wiki, none of these offer a broad face on a topic and cumulate information on one(!) web page as the events happen, but rather offer a mass of syndicated 'snap-shot' articles which are all almost identical in a query result list. These articles repeat information related in other previous articles over and over again too for the sake of context. This is inefficient - pure and simple. Those who hate wiki should propose a better general resource to the oh-so ignorant masses who choose to drill down to Internet links with the *visually clean and objective resource of wiki.
Sod truth, we'll get to that, make it pretty first. Time.com is an ugly mess full of ads and pop-ups. Economist.com costs money. Foxnews.com is, um, selective. Other sites offer only endless rewritten agency texts. Where is this other great general reference tool? Ahhh, there ain't one. Now we see why wiki is still useful - despite its many flaws.
Last edited by belligerentyouth; 10/28/05 12:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
A blog entry on an opinion published by the Guardian about the confession of Orlowski about a single Wikipedia entry. Made for goodly Saturday afternoon reading.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
guess I can Basque in the glory...
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230 |
BY claims that wikipedia is "objective". While that's very debatable, the lack of objectivity among its supporters is not. My position on this has always been the same - not anti-wikipedia, just anti wikiolatry. Sadly, it seems that to use the one, one must practice the other. Large chunks of Wikipedia are utter crap, but saying so brings down the wrath of the faithful. It also brings out the defensive "look what else is out there" type of responses. If any other resource was being so uncritically accepted as the repository of absolute truth, there would be an outcry, but Wikipedia appears to be off-limits apparently. As a final contribution to this amusing little stirring of the waters of wiki-passion, I offer a comparison of Wikipedia and Linux http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/27/wikipedia_britannica_and_linux/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
I just think it's a resource. a sometimes (oftimes?) imperfect one, and as I said earlier, one that I use more as a link to deeper information. but is this becoming and baby and bathwater thing?
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
wikiolatry
A most worthy addition to the lexicon!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
It strikes me that the wikiolators (i.e., those that declaim YDGI) must belileve they're playing at something like Hesse's Glass Bead Game. -joe 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Quote:
It strikes me that the wikiolators (i.e., those that declaim YDGI) must belileve they're playing at something like Hesse's Glass Bead Game.
-joe
Or either the beta test of the precursor to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, one.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,364
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
1 members (A C Bowden),
630
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
