QUOTE
Greg, please go to the Orlando Sentinel. Etan Horowitz wrote yet another article on Wales. It is surprising that he has written two articles in three days on Wikipedia. His boss must want to get the most out of his all-expenses paid trip out to Disney for the meeting.
And you wonder where I get my skepticism? Note that my 74-year-old Pop is even noticing all the fluffy pro-Wikipedia journalism lately.
Anyway, see what Jimbo had to say about MySpace in the article:
QUOTE
"I think MySpace is doomed, I give them about two more years," Wales said of the social-networking site owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
Let's put MySpace on the death watch list, everyone. Jimbo knows a thing or two about doomed enterprises. Look at Bomis today. Look at the progress that Openserving.com is (not) making.
I hope you all click through to Horowitz's column, and especially observe Comment #1.
Greg
P.S. Just in case the Sentinel (or, as we used to call it, the SLANTinel) deletes my comment in the Wikipediot fashion, here's what I said:
QUOTE
Mr. Horowitz, you have succumbed to the mind-rays, it seems. See how you report that Jimmy Wales is the "founder" of Wikipedia? Why don't you check Wikipedia itself and learn that just about the entire world (except for Jimbo) recognizes him to be a CO-founder, along with Larry Sanger.
As for doomed enterprises like MySpace... Jimmy should know something about doomed operations. Where is Bomis.com today? How is that Openserving.com project of his going, now that it's been up and running for a year?
Regarding restaurants where people attack each other with knives -- let's think of a more apt analogy. If Wikipedia is a restaurant, that restaurant is serving food that is 100% delicious, but only 98% authentic. Your mashed potatoes are mixed in with 2% sawdust. Your Bloody Mary has 2% sheep's blood in it. Do you know what you're eating and drinking are tainted? No, probably not -- it still tastes delicious. When some expert points out to you the facts, though, what would you do -- as a responsible journalist? Wouldn't you inform your readers of the sawdust and sheep's blood scandal?
That's what's happening on Wikipedia right now. It is the world's most irresponsible encyclopedia, hiding behind Section 230 to enjoy saying that it is not a "publisher" of content, but rather a mere "Internet service provider". Come now, when you read Wikipedia, do you perceive that the content has been "published" for your edification, or merely that it is being "service provided" to you? Be honest with your answer.
Your readers would welcome some more cutting investigative reporting, rather than this PR "puff piece" that you've generated here. Here's where you can start -- why is the Wikimedia Foundation budgeting $4.6 million for 2008, when they've gotten by with a mere fraction of that amount in all previous years? Could you explain why they've operated without an Executive Director for a long time, but suddenly need to pay the new one imported from Canada (and her still unhired staff) over $500,000 next year? Yet, at the same time, the fundraising message is that the money is going to poor, uneducated Africans. It's going to a white, privileged woman named Sue Gardner -- but nobody's reporting on that. Please, we're begging you, do your job as a journalist, not a marketing flack.
As for doomed enterprises like MySpace... Jimmy should know something about doomed operations. Where is Bomis.com today? How is that Openserving.com project of his going, now that it's been up and running for a year?
Regarding restaurants where people attack each other with knives -- let's think of a more apt analogy. If Wikipedia is a restaurant, that restaurant is serving food that is 100% delicious, but only 98% authentic. Your mashed potatoes are mixed in with 2% sawdust. Your Bloody Mary has 2% sheep's blood in it. Do you know what you're eating and drinking are tainted? No, probably not -- it still tastes delicious. When some expert points out to you the facts, though, what would you do -- as a responsible journalist? Wouldn't you inform your readers of the sawdust and sheep's blood scandal?
That's what's happening on Wikipedia right now. It is the world's most irresponsible encyclopedia, hiding behind Section 230 to enjoy saying that it is not a "publisher" of content, but rather a mere "Internet service provider". Come now, when you read Wikipedia, do you perceive that the content has been "published" for your edification, or merely that it is being "service provided" to you? Be honest with your answer.
Your readers would welcome some more cutting investigative reporting, rather than this PR "puff piece" that you've generated here. Here's where you can start -- why is the Wikimedia Foundation budgeting $4.6 million for 2008, when they've gotten by with a mere fraction of that amount in all previous years? Could you explain why they've operated without an Executive Director for a long time, but suddenly need to pay the new one imported from Canada (and her still unhired staff) over $500,000 next year? Yet, at the same time, the fundraising message is that the money is going to poor, uneducated Africans. It's going to a white, privileged woman named Sue Gardner -- but nobody's reporting on that. Please, we're begging you, do your job as a journalist, not a marketing flack.