Wikipedia is dead, says Nick Carr; and it's hard to disagree
Guardian Unlimited, UK - 16 minutes ago
Carr (who wrote "Does IT matter?") doesn't mean "dead" as in "offline" (Wikipedia is still very much there); he means "dead" as in "not open to anyone to edit ...

Very interesting reading.



http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/05/...death_of_wi.php

For future reference this is the kind of thing that should be deleted:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/arc...ee_updated.html

as it's just a copy of:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/arc...o_disagree.html
(which has the updated version in it anyway)

Excellent article!
Wales confesses that his slogan is bull shit.
I give Wikipedia about one more year.

Then this room and Ralph Nader can look around for another "day trader" turned "Internet marketing pro."

What Wales just doesn't get - is the cultural birth of the Internet.
He was not there for it.

The Net started off as a non-profit, academic world.
User- friendly.
Very real.
Wikipedia pretends to be just that.
But note the key word: "pretends."
You just don't lie or abuse people on the Web.
Any where for that matter!

Jimbo - I don't know you.
I respect your ability to market - you have done a fine job with Wikipedia.
But your 15 minutes is now over.
You may want to consider opening an on-line casino ;>

Oh yes, Jimbo - don't screw with the media.
Don't mess with the 3rd estate.

We have always had the last word - even when one trys to censor us.

The truth always comes out - unless you are an effective CIA or Mossad operative ;>

The comments are a barrel of lulz. Jimbo says things and long time Wikipedians and others correct him (Erik (Möller perhaps?) and the Cuncator (First edit in 2001)).

I notice that Selina's plug for the Review, and another post which mentions the word "cabal," have been removed from the "comments" section of the article. Does anyone know how and why?