thekohser

13 January 2011 1:54PM

I'm happy to see that The Guardian has dispensed with the charade of finding an "independent" journalist to regurgitate the public relations pablum that the Wikimedia Foundation serves up, and simply gave Sue Gardner her own spot to issue forth her propaganda.

I wrote this in The Guardian just 2 years ago:


It appears that nothing has changed since except that once-professional media have grown even lazier, more amateurish, and far less inclined to critical analysis and investigative journalism.

— Jon Awbrey, Comment in The Guardian, 13 Jan 2011, 2:42 pm

Thank you, Wikipedia, for teaching us that falsehood is more viral than truth.

Jon Awbrey, 13 Jan 2011 GMT 5:32

I see that The Guardian is “Not-Censored” in the same way that Wikipedia is “Not-Censored”, through the deletion of any critical opinion, no matter how civil and true.

— Jon Awbrey, 13 Jan 2011 @ 6:36 PM

One may find additional discussion of this article in the Free World beyond the Wiki-Curtain, to wit, on this thread at The Wikipedia Review.

— Jon Awbrey, 13 Jan 2011 @ 9:08 PM

# Logged in as thekohser
# Click here to sign out
#

Your comments are being premoderated.

I shall laugh at the Guardian Media Group, as it goes from a 2008 profit of £306,000,000...

to a 2009 loss of £97,000,000...

to a 2010 loss of £171,000,000.


Good luck with those comment moderation practices after you've shuttered the doors.

Wikipedia at 10 : a web pioneer worth defending

The greatest threat to this remarkable collaborative model of
non-profit information sharing is not commerce, but censorship.

GregoryKohs

14 January 2011 1:16PM

Wikipedia is wonderful. I praise the media for making room to recognize the contribution that this resource has made to our world. Wikipedia doesn't get enough attention. It's also refreshing to read these new and stimulating ideas from executive director Sue Gardner. I don't think she's received enough opportunities to communicate the good deeds that Wikipedia performs, so it's a blessing to see that The Guardian has dedicated this small bit of space for her to deliver the message that needs to be heard -- censorship is the greatest threat to open communication on the Internet, not an erosion of the "net neutrality" concept (Internet service providers in America will be happy to hear that).

I would also like to praise Jimmy Wales, the sole founder of Wikipedia, but I'm afraid that I just don't have the time (and only 4,158 characters) to properly give him all of the praise and credit that he so much deserves!

Praise be to The Guardian, for shepherding in this new age of Internet dialog and inclusiveness!

Thank you for choosing to start this survey but unfortunately you have to live in the United Kingdom to continue.

I see that I have a new status on The Guardian:



That's a tactic straight out of Foundation-l's mailing list.

Apparently with the money they saved by letting go of Seth Finkelstein, The Guardian has been able to hire Sue Gardner as a writer.

Thanks, Wikipedia, for teaching us that falsehood is more viral than truth.

— Jonny Cache, 15 Jan 2011 @ 12:38AM

Bumping this up so I have a chance of finding it tomorrow …

Jon

26. jonawbrey - January 16, 2011 at 02:11 am

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMFstratplanSurvey1.png

I didn't click the link — checking facts is so last millennium — but I'm wondering if it says anything about the average number of divinity degrees held by Wikipedia “editors”? I can hardly wait for the days when we get our basic demographic data for government appropriations and proportionate representation by crowd-sourcing the Census — that will be a “con”-census for sure.

Which one? Sorry, I've been merging all these due to their general worthlessness.

Casper Grathwohl, “Wikipedia Comes of Age”, Chronicle of Higher Education, 07 Jan 2011

Casper Grathwohl is vice president and publisher of digital and reference content for Oxford University Press.

Some of us have spent quite a lot of time making multiple comments on some of (what used to be) the better Op-Ed sites, and it would be nice if those were moved up to the News Worth Discussing forum like our FAC says we do, cause some of us still spend time talking to the outside world about (what used to be) outside world concerns and even dare to refer outside world folk back here now and again. Newsfeed threads from Wiki-Podunk @ Large that no one comments on can probably be merged after a day or so.

Lost In Lodi Again …

Jon

27. jonawbrey - January 16, 2011 at 12:00 pm

“Casper Grathwohl is vice president and publisher of digital and reference content for Oxford University Press”

Oxford English Dictionary Online : Personal Subscription £205.00 (+VAT) per year

http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/academi...780198605553.do

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y -- and you can look it up ...

28. fred_bauder - January 19, 2011 at 09:40 am

With respect to certain comments: They are being made by people who have been banned from Wikipedia as a part of our on-going effort to improve quality. I'm embarrassed to see such dirty-laundry being aired out here, but that is what a good-washing out results in.

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia everyone can edit, really, and experienced teachers and researchers who have a committment to the development and dissemination of knowledge and are willing to engage the public are especially welcome. You can made substantial contributions and maybe have some fun too.

One warning though, cite reliable sources, and never, never say "I'm a professor; I'm the leading authority in the field; I don't have to cite sources."

Chronicle.com/article/Wikipedia-Comes-of-Age/125899#comment90045

32. seth_finkelstein - January 19, 2011 at 11:59 am

If people really want a critic's response to the "launching point" argument, I'll address it in specific. In my view, it's a trivial statement which means far less that it appears. And is too often used as a kind of trump card when it's nothing of the sort. That is, any half-baked collection of discussion and links on a topic can be a "launching point". A rant of complete gibberish can even be a "launching point" if it has sources. Yet people don't often often point to sites full of quack medical advice, crank legal theories, or nonsense economics, and say it's a good starting point if one doesn't rely on the scholarship of the articles themselves but looks at the original sources.

Basically, categorically, if you wouldn't say something about "A random webpage on the topic, written by anonymous author or authors, of uncertain agenda and unknown experience", then you shouldn't say it about "a Wikipedia article". Because cherry-picking to contrary, there is no assurance those two are distinct.

Wikipedia's monopolization here, where it's taking the time and effort of academics who could write high-quality articles, and throwing all that into the grinder which is Wikipedia politics and community dysfunction, strikes me as like pounding nails through bricks using your forehead and then justifying it by saying at least you got some construction done.

Chronicle.com/article/Wikipedia-Comes-of-Age/125899#comment90070

34. jonawbrey - January 19, 2011 at 10:24 pm

The long and short of it is that the longer students participate in editing Wikipedia the more bad habits they will acquire. Wikipedia Culture (WC) is radically different from Academic Culture (AC), and the more time developing personalities spend in WC the more their conduct will depart from the norms of scholarship and citizenship both.

Chronicle.com/article/Wikipedia-Comes-of-Age/125899#comment90145

35. jonawbrey - January 20, 2011 at 09:04 am

I think we all understand that there are many people of good will who edit Wikipedia. But good will is not what pervades the Wikipedia system as a whole. What pervades Wikipedia over and above everything else is a lack of desire for the truth.

Chronicle.com/article/Wikipedia-Comes-of-Age/125899#comment90166