Monday, May 28, 2007
An essay about Wikipedia worth reading
On the other hand, I am troubled by volunteers to this project who in certain areas argue that Wikipedia is not censored, yet in other areas passionately argue for the removal or suppression of information. (Maybe I'm one of these inconsistent people; that's one reason I need to think some more about his essay.) For example, one cannot create an external link to Encyclopedia Dramatica from Wikipedia due to its track record of making hurtful comments on various prominent Wikipedians -- although I know of at least one well-respected Wikipedian who has an account there.
If Wikipedia is to truthfully reflect the interests of its users, then its criteria for inclusion -- those things that should be considered notable -- will constantly be changing, in directions that neither Jimbo Wales nor I can forsee. Consider which topics the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica felt were important enough to need inclusion -- and those that were unimportant enough to ignore -- and compare them to a list of which topics any educated person today might compile; if we can look back at this serious reference work and consider it prejudiced and incomplete, would the people even ten years from now think the current version of Wikipedia imperfect for similar reasons? I often think about that question, and find myself wondering if I am helping to keep it free of those flaws.
Technocrati tags: hyperlinking, notability, wikipedia
I'm also tremendously displeased that the BADSITES fans tried to push their failed policy initiative through on an RFA, and managed to nobble it utterly. Thus opening the door to similar exploits of RFA. I'm sure the next admin chosen to make an example of will really enjoy it.
To have the Best Dissertation, hardwork must
be imposed for a successful paper.
Links to this post: