[Web4lib] Wikipedia vs Britannica

[Chuck0]

James Jacobs wrote:

> Let's get back to the wikipedia discussion shall we? There's no need to 
> scrub the archive of this one article. The fair use/listserv debate 
> would make a fertile panel discussion at a future conference or on 
> liblicense (http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/index.shtml). I'd 
> certainly be willing to sit on that one ;-)

If people enjoyed my opinions on fair use and copyright, perhaps I 
should share my Wikipedia bullshit detector with the list. I'm currently 
banned from posting to Wikipedia. The fact that Wikipedia has banned a 
librarian at least twice for trying to correct factual misinformation on 
articles ought to bother a few of you.

There are many things I like about Wikipedia, but currently it is being 
trashed by its own fans, who I call "Wiki-zealots." There was a comment 
on Slashdot today urging scientists to contribute to Wikipedia to make 
it more accurate. What the Wikipedia newbie may not understand is that 
Wikipedia is run by a set of zealots who enforce their guidelines in 
some rather arbitrary and roughshod ways. Thus, if you know something 
about a topic--indeed, if you are publishing a book on that subject--you 
will find your edits "reverted" and labeled as vandalism.

Granted, there is much awesome content on Wikipedia, because many people 
contributed content generously. But Wikipedia has some serious problems, 
as evidenced by recent news reports. Most of those problems stem from 
these "zealots," but also the people who run Wikipedia need to show more 
responsibility and some new insights on how to lessen these problems.

Chuck