Comments on: Wikipedia and Trust… http://jomc191.blogsome.com/2005/12/04/wikipedia-and-trust/ JOMC 191.3 Virtual Communities Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:29:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Administrator http://jomc191.blogsome.com/2005/12/04/wikipedia-and-trust/#comment-228 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 02:27:44 +0000 http://jomc191.blogsome.com/2005/12/04/wikipedia-and-trust/#comment-228 There are changes afoot. Seigenthaler isn't the only one upset with the wikipedia method, Dave Winer and others have traced erasures to Adam Curry. See <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5981119.html" rel="nofollow">this CNet article</a> which begins: <blockquote> Growing pains for Wikipedia By Daniel Terdiman Staff Writer, CNET News.com Published: December 5, 2005, 4:00 AM PST For Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, last week was a tough one. And he's going to change the ground rules for the popular anyone-can-contribute encyclopedia because of it. First, in a Nov. 29 op-ed piece in USA Today, a former administrative assistant to Robert Kennedy lambasted the free online reference work for an article that suggested he may have been involved in the assassinations of both Robert F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy. Then, on Dec. 1, a new flurry of attention came when former MTV VJ and podcasting pioneer Adam Curry was accused of anonymously editing out references to other people's seminal podcasting work in an article about the hot new digital medium. To critics of Wikipedia--which, in a spin on the open-source model, lets anyone create and edit entries--the news was further proof that the service has no accountability and no place in the world of serious information gathering. [...] </blockquote> There are changes afoot. Seigenthaler isn’t the only one upset with the wikipedia method, Dave Winer and others have traced erasures to Adam Curry. See this CNet article which begins:

Growing pains for Wikipedia
By Daniel Terdiman
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: December 5, 2005, 4:00 AM PST

For Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, last week was a tough one. And he’s going to change the ground rules for the popular anyone-can-contribute encyclopedia because of it.

First, in a Nov. 29 op-ed piece in USA Today, a former administrative assistant to Robert Kennedy lambasted the free online reference work for an article that suggested he may have been involved in the assassinations of both Robert F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy.

Then, on Dec. 1, a new flurry of attention came when former MTV VJ and podcasting pioneer Adam Curry was accused of anonymously editing out references to other people’s seminal podcasting work in an article about the hot new digital medium.

To critics of Wikipedia–which, in a spin on the open-source model, lets anyone create and edit entries–the news was further proof that the service has no accountability and no place in the world of serious information gathering.
[…]

]]> by: habib http://jomc191.blogsome.com/2005/12/04/wikipedia-and-trust/#comment-227 Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:41:38 +0000 http://jomc191.blogsome.com/2005/12/04/wikipedia-and-trust/#comment-227 Yup I read this guys article. He really hates wikipedia. It circulated on one of the library listservs and sadly most librarians that bothered to respond agree wholeheartedly and think wikipedia is garbage. One thing I found silly was that the guy did not remove the false information himself. He just let it sit there and contacted Jimbo Wales to complain. I understand his frustration, but it is no different from wacky stuff being posted to any other website. As is stated in the article, librarians and journalists have always tried to back up their sources, even the Encyclopedia Britannica, so I can't quite understand why Wikipedia is so different. That is except for the fact that he could have corrected the incorrect content himself, which to me seems an improvement. In the NYT's article, Lessig is quoted as stating basically the same thing. What I believe is Seigenthaler's original article is located <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Yup I read this guys article. He really hates wikipedia. It circulated on
one of the library listservs and sadly most librarians that bothered to
respond agree wholeheartedly and think wikipedia is garbage. One thing I
found silly was that the guy did not remove the false information himself.
He just let it sit there and contacted Jimbo Wales to complain. I understand
his frustration, but it is no different from wacky stuff being posted to any
other website. As is stated in the article, librarians and journalists have
always tried to back up their sources, even the Encyclopedia Britannica, so I
can’t quite understand why Wikipedia is so different. That is except for the
fact that he could have corrected the incorrect content himself, which to me
seems an improvement. In the NYT’s article, Lessig is quoted as stating
basically the same thing. What I believe is Seigenthaler’s original article
is located here.

]]>