A Note on Wikipedia
In theory, I like Wikipedia. And I've often linked there from here. This evening, however, one of their junior sub-editors decided that the dozen or so Wiki links I've posted there to EP are spam. The question was, "have reputable sources cited EP?" My answer was "no" but if Wiki has an entry for an individual, and I've interviewed that person at length, then by definition the interview should be of interest. Anyhow, the upshot was that this person deleted all Wiki links to EP. It's not worth arguing with them — traffic from Wiki to EP was de minimis — still, it has made me more aware that their editorial process can be exceedingly arbitrary, flawed, and far-reaching. Further, I hesitate to ascribe political motivations, but I believe that is a legitimate question...
Posted by George Kenney on April 8, 2007 11:50 PM 
« Reading Intentions | Main | They Don't Do Gushers in Texas, Anymore »
Comments
The Wikipedia is much like a beautiful sandcastle subject to arbitrary, ignorant, and sudden destructiveness.
Enamored with it initially — I've all but given up on it. I have seen many of my contributions whittled, distorted or removed. I have never doubted that unseen and unaccountable hands exert undo influence over content.
I noticed just now, that after a surprising run of about two months, a link I contributed to an article by Werther here at Electric Politics about Michele Bachmann was removed. I was surprised that it lasted as long as it did.
Reason given by "RJASE1": "remove link spam."
http://tinyurl.com/34qtac
I simply have no energy to fight these trolls who are comfortable on this turf.
I have a good friend here in San Francisco who is an advocate for libraries (and a foe of RFID). We get into heated arguments about the internet. He is skeptical about the trust many people have today in the internet and he works tirelessly to remind people that libraries are our most trustworthy repository of information. Are they?
Ultimately the institutions we build upon become a reflection of our own energy and integrity. We certainly live in a very interesting time.
Posted by: Robert B. Livingston | April 11, 2007 1:37 PM
The highpoint of Wikipedia was 2-3 years ago, it's become worse since then. Seems every page is now controlled by a cabal of no-life losers who nitpick every factual change, while not bothering to fix typos and repeated information (a huge problem). It's silly that Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously but then gives up and allows the geek virgins to create a separate page for each of the 2,354,161 different pokemon. I've given up on editing anything.
Posted by: isamu | April 12, 2007 9:15 AM
Time might be right for an interview with Daniel Brandt.
He's been on the money, in my opinion, about the possible downsides of the information railroad that google/wikipedia have become. Congratulations on the good listening you're providing.
Posted by: paul | April 13, 2007 4:47 AM