Wiki Crit
No better way to spend a sunny October Saturday than reading Jason Scott's criticism of Wikipedia (she says, with a hint of sarcasm). Really, though, it's an entertaining article. However, I -- like Wiki's blogger -- found most of the main arguments within the article to be lacking sufficient evidence.
1. I never considered Wikipedia to be resting on a "utopian framework" (as Jason does) because I always understood it as a sort of collaborative experiment that expanded beyond expectations. Wiki blogger says something like this, and Jason defends himself by saying that Jimbo has repeatedly referred to Wikipedia in terms of "good and light," which reminded me of The New Yorker article that mentions Wikipedia working for a "greater good." I don't think that makes Wikipedia based on a utopian framework, but I can more clearly see Jason's point. Perhaps the site has been glorified a bit...too much?
2 & 3. Jason believes that the back-and-forth quality of Wikipedia opens it up to "supervandalism," which I think contributes to his third point about Wikipedia representing the first wave of the information war. I would not pin that on Wikipedia. I think we've been heading toward that for a long, long time as our technologies have advanced and the speed with which we attain information has quickened. Wikipedia may be a part of the information war, but I don't think it represents the first wave. And I guess, to be perhaps overly optimistic, an information war may bring about more discernible readers.
4. He is right on this. Deletion by some random guy (or woman) is a bit disheartening and befuddling, but, you know, that's how it works.
5 & 6. Jason, even in his comments on Wiki's blog, did not solidify his claims that insiders of Wikipedia are working to ruin it. Totally possible, sure. But not convincing without proof. I'm also not convinced of any sort of coming overthrow of Jimbo, nor do I particularly care.
The delightful New York Times article that Colin posted centered on #4, the process of deletion from or addition to Wikipedia. It seems that the definition of "notable" is ambiguous (even considering the guidelines), but I think it has to be in order to maintain the open feel of the site.
I loved reading the entries and the debates about whether each entry should be added or deleted. It was like a pithy internet version of American Idol. They show off their stuff (Pooky, for instance), the people debate about its "notable" quality, and it either stays on or gets the ax. What fun!
1. I never considered Wikipedia to be resting on a "utopian framework" (as Jason does) because I always understood it as a sort of collaborative experiment that expanded beyond expectations. Wiki blogger says something like this, and Jason defends himself by saying that Jimbo has repeatedly referred to Wikipedia in terms of "good and light," which reminded me of The New Yorker article that mentions Wikipedia working for a "greater good." I don't think that makes Wikipedia based on a utopian framework, but I can more clearly see Jason's point. Perhaps the site has been glorified a bit...too much?
2 & 3. Jason believes that the back-and-forth quality of Wikipedia opens it up to "supervandalism," which I think contributes to his third point about Wikipedia representing the first wave of the information war. I would not pin that on Wikipedia. I think we've been heading toward that for a long, long time as our technologies have advanced and the speed with which we attain information has quickened. Wikipedia may be a part of the information war, but I don't think it represents the first wave. And I guess, to be perhaps overly optimistic, an information war may bring about more discernible readers.
4. He is right on this. Deletion by some random guy (or woman) is a bit disheartening and befuddling, but, you know, that's how it works.
5 & 6. Jason, even in his comments on Wiki's blog, did not solidify his claims that insiders of Wikipedia are working to ruin it. Totally possible, sure. But not convincing without proof. I'm also not convinced of any sort of coming overthrow of Jimbo, nor do I particularly care.
The delightful New York Times article that Colin posted centered on #4, the process of deletion from or addition to Wikipedia. It seems that the definition of "notable" is ambiguous (even considering the guidelines), but I think it has to be in order to maintain the open feel of the site.
I loved reading the entries and the debates about whether each entry should be added or deleted. It was like a pithy internet version of American Idol. They show off their stuff (Pooky, for instance), the people debate about its "notable" quality, and it either stays on or gets the ax. What fun!
Labels: Wikipedia
