The following is cut and paste from a comment about WIKIPEDIA
Poster #1
Infuriating features of Wikipedia practices are:
1.The ease with which an article can be torpedoed by half wits.
2. Failure by Wikipedia to recognise the validity of a topic that only the writer has published and worked on in any depth, and by its archaic rules that disallow referring to one’s own work which provides detailed theory to be followed up.
3.The sheer bureacracy involved in submitting an article for it to be retained by the system.
Poster #2
One of the principal problems with Wikipedia is its inner panel of would-be editors, mostly I suspect, young American geeks who have little knowledge of life or the world and who decide what shall or shall not be included. Articles frequently have the note “citation needed” as if every entry has to have a series of foot notes. Conversely, biographical details appear about persons who are enjoying temporary celebrity and which any other encylopaedia would reject. Indeed, celebrity appears to be an important element – Paris Hilton (noted as an “American celebutante”) a young person of ample means but of no discernable ability, has no less than 72 references. Glenda Jackson, infinitely more talented, has but one! If Wikipedia was a genuine encylopaedia, on the lines of Britannica, then it would have a more critical faculty as Google appears to desire. SInce Google is now the hallmark for search engines, with luck its new endeavour will succeed in the same way as the original.
My comments
 Sooner or later the WIKIPEDIA crowd is going to get tired of sitting on their eggs as these eggs never hatch but require endless tending. There will be no new people to take their places as the new people are being put off by Wikipedia-Dictators. People are speaking up more and more about Wikipedia.Â
Personally I hope they change the culture of Wikipedia. But I have my doubts it will happen.
0 Comments