Wikipedia can't save us
San Francisco Bay Guardian, CA -8 minutes ago
BY ANNALEE NEWITZ, TECHSPLOITATION Last week I wrote about the premise of Oxford professor Jonathan Zittrain's new book, The Future of the Internet and How ...

View the article

This is a funny article. This supposedly websavvy author thinks that Wikipedia offers a "safe space" for publishing your own stuff. LOL.

Hey SF Guardian! Have your articles written by somebody who knows what the hell they're talking about! Otherwise your whole newspaper will be in danger of looking like.... Wikipedia.

I absolutely could not resist "official" Comcast response to this article in its Comments section.

Greg

I was gonna say, "There he goes again, the incorrigible Greg Kohser."

But that was actually a professionally crafted comment, not what I expected to find.

Would you have been so moderate if you had not identified yourself by name as the Comcast Director of Market Research?

C'mon, Barry. If you search through my comments on reputable news organization's article pages, I'm quite moderate in most all of my interaction, aren't I?

You make it sound as if I put on the springy-eyeball glasses and blow a kazoo whenever I post to a comments section online. That's not very fair.

I only don that attire here at Wikipedia Review!

At the WP:AN, Wesley R. Elsberry bases his judgment on his analysis of what I've posted on my personal blog.

So much for free speech in America, eh?

My point being you're not alone, Greg, in being reviled for what you say off-wiki.

LOL!

Imagine a newspaper that anyone can edit.

Yeah, get all these Wikipedia editors on the "job".

Wonder would it work?

Some of these online news sites have turned their articles into blogs in order for the public to comment on them. Why? I don't know. And what the news sites are going to learn along with WP is that allowing dunderheads to libel others on their site simply is not going to work.

I fear modern journalism is in danger of being completely destroyed by the "cult of the amateur."

It already exists. It's called Wikinews.

I was thinking of a daily, something like the New York Times!

Sorta, hardcopy and ink type?

And the libel suits would be issued to whom?

The anon editors and admins, of course.

Not the printers. What's that section again? 230?

Lies, Lies, Lies, Yeah!

Jon