[Web4lib] Is Wikipedia Failing? -- follow up

[Craig, Emory]

Meant to reply to Walt's comment the other day and while the Wikipedia thread is moving on (thanks Alain for that wonderful metaphor of the project as a giant amoeba) but let me briefly return to it. My choice of the MS debacle was probably not the best example given the complexity of that issue. Others (IBM so the rumors go) seem to do quite well getting revisions through Wikipedia and MS apparently would have fared better simply by being more deceptive. As Walt noted, Wikipedia's whitepaper suggestion is astonishing. We end up, as Nicholas Carr has pointed out, with this strange paradox of "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but perhaps off limits to experts who may have "gained deep enough knowledge of a subject to have developed a point of view." Carr is not off the mark in suggesting that this leads to a parody of the traditional editorial process. 

 

If anyone is interested, Carr's comments on the MS / Rick Jellife / Wikipedia matter are here (a nice URL!):

 

http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/01/experts_go_home.php <http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/01/experts_go_home.php> 

 

-e

 

Emory M. Craig
Director of Academic Computing Services
The College of New Rochelle
New Rochelle, N.Y. 10805
914-654-5536
www.cnr.edu <http://www.cnr.edu/>  


________________________________

From: Crawford,Walt [mailto:crawforw at oclc.org]
Sent: Fri 2/16/2007 3:04 PM
To: Craig, Emory; Alain D. M. G. Vaillancourt; web4lib
Subject: RE: [Web4lib] Is Wikipedia Failing?



The example Emory Craig provides is interesting but tricky: By all accounts, MS was trying to get errors corrected by paying an expert to say *whatever the expert wanted to say*--because MS couldn't do it directly. There was no attempt at secrecy, no attempt to control the message.

Wikipedia's response--"Commission a white paper and suggest that we link to it"--was astonishing.

Not quite as astonishing as the attitude toward anyone "tampering with" an entry on themselves--unless, of course, they're a Special Case like Cory Doctorow, who apparently is allowed to edit his own entry. Otherwise, you can't say you don't want to be in Wikipedia, you can't correct flagrant errors in your entry (unless you do so via meatpuppet or pseudonym)...well, it makes me happy I'm non-notable (in English, at least).

[Yes, I use Wikipedia...as a starting point. Yes, I've made edits...two of them. But also, yes, I have better things to do, especially since Alain V's experience is by no means unique.]

Walt Crawford

-----Original Message-----
From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org [mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Craig, Emory
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 11:45 AM
To: Alain D. M. G. Vaillancourt; web4lib
Subject: RE: [Web4lib] Is Wikipedia Failing?

Alain,

You have a good point and one that Goldman misses -- the "shouting newcomer." If Wikipedia continues to be successful, I think marketers and self-promoters will eventually become an issue (an ex. that comes to mind is MS efforts to hire a blogger to change articles) in the future. But for now, there is enough of a challenge dealing with those whose knowledge is inversely proportional to their desire to be heard. I can see how it would wear you down.

-e

Emory Craig
Director of Academic Computing
The College of New Rochelle
914-654-5536

. . . . .