Full Version: The debate over editing Wikipedia shows we haven't caught up with ... - guardian.co.uk
•The debate over editing Wikipedia shows we haven't caught up with ...
guardian.co.uk, UK -47 minutes ago
Ted Kennedy died last week. At least, I think it was last week that I had an alert from Wikipedia: "Kennedy suffered a seizure at a luncheon following the ...
View the article
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Thu 29th January 2009, 3:48am) 
I posted a comment.
QUOTE
de ja vu
all over again
all over again
all over again
de ja vu
a lover again
a lover again
a lover again
de ja vu
a lover o' gain
a lover o' gain
a lover o' gain
yet another yet another yet another month long munch song much wrong
spate of same ol same ol same ol nooz 2 riddle a diddle a widdle body bout
duh oh so oh so oh so good intentions o' jimbo come to come to come to zip
and you fall for it every time …
Ja³
Short Version. Technoir Journalists need to start reading The Wikipedia Review if they want to stay ahead of the curve on Jimbo UnLtd's latest con. These "new" proposals, the seasonal reruns of flags that get sent up the flagpole on a recurring basis — in the shape they are currently coming through the Wikipediot wringer — will actually make things worse than before. Surprise, surprise.
Jon Awbrey
29 Jan 2009, 1:09pm
I doubt if the Ugly Truth is Ready for Padraig Reidy Time, but maybe he'll appreciate a bit o' the old Joysprach.
Ja³
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Thu 29th January 2009, 3:48am)
I posted another comment.
QUOTE
QUOTE
@Orwellwasright
"As for Wikipedia, judging by Wikileaks it's not the public we have to be concerned about for erroneously altering the content, it's the government and corporations who have been caught out several times propagandising and distorting/removing information which is critical of their actions. The same governments, incidentally, who are proposing new controls over the net …"
Wikipedia has shown us that a mass medium can be rendered so plastic and so well-leveraged that any part of it can be manipulated by a relatively small number of people, in ways that defy a free society's usual means to guard against it, so long as the special interests in question have a moderate amount of resources and the will to do so. If there are portions of the content that remain untouched, it is for two reasons only: (1) no one has conceived a stake in them yet, (2) virgin forest makes for good cover.
If you're thinking that Wikipedia is the Latest Thing in Blows Against The Empire, then you have a DoubleThink coming.
Jon Awbrey
30 Jan 2009, 2:02am
By the time I got done writing this, the "Guardian" (of wut, yoo may ask) had already censored my first comment — "Comment Is Free"? … "Free To Delete", I Guess — and also one by Greg Kohs.
But I have better hopes for this one …
Ja³
Further discus-hurling ensues —
Djmikeyc asks, "What have you been eating, Jon?"
Well, I had what we Yanks call an "English muffin" this morning, but let's discuss crumpet another time.
There is always a more or less disconcerting information lag between those who have a lot of experience with some phenomenon and those who have a lot less — so I can understand how people who have yet to encounter the full brunt of Wikipediac Culture might find words like "cult" and "cultism" too strange to be true. But you know what our dear Lord Byron said …
At any rate, Greg Kohs and several others spent six months in yeoman data-mining and statistical work to document the facts of Wikipediac irresponsibility in the case of the Hundred U.S. Senators, and maybe none of that is news to some people, but the facts are sacred, or so I hear.
What is there about Wikipediac Culture that leads many people, not just one, to invoke the terms and specifications of cult dynamics to explain it? I think the crux of the matter is a peculiar attitude of mind that one finds prevailing among the True Believers in Wikipediac Ways. It's a hard thing to pin down exactly, but something like a "Suspension Of Critical Thinking" (WP:SOCT) might name it for now.
Jon Awbrey
30 Jan 2009, 7:23pm
QUOTE
Djmikeyc asks, "What have you been eating, Jon?"
Well, I had what we Yanks call an "English muffin" this morning, but let's discuss crumpet another time.
There is always a more or less disconcerting information lag between those who have a lot of experience with some phenomenon and those who have a lot less — so I can understand how people who have yet to encounter the full brunt of Wikipediac Culture might find words like "cult" and "cultism" too strange to be true. But you know what our dear Lord Byron said …
At any rate, Greg Kohs and several others spent six months in yeoman data-mining and statistical work to document the facts of Wikipediac irresponsibility in the case of the Hundred U.S. Senators, and maybe none of that is news to some people, but the facts are sacred, or so I hear.
What is there about Wikipediac Culture that leads many people, not just one, to invoke the terms and specifications of cult dynamics to explain it? I think the crux of the matter is a peculiar attitude of mind that one finds prevailing among the True Believers in Wikipediac Ways. It's a hard thing to pin down exactly, but something like a "Suspension Of Critical Thinking" (WP:SOCT) might name it for now.
Jon Awbrey
30 Jan 2009, 7:23pm
A familiar pattern develops —
@Delphinidae
People are impressed most strongly by their own experiences and only incidentally by the experiences of others. Most of the comments that I hear from current subscribers to the Wikipediac Belief System are just the sorts of things that I myself found myself saying in my sweet but brief honeymoon period with Wikipedia just about this time 3 years ago.
Having been a critic of all things establishment for about as long as I can remember, it is amusing to find myself ironically caged with "people who labour under the delusion that more 'official'/conventional sources (of uncontentious information) are intrinsically superior". That's okay, I know you don't know me very well, but you are right in a funny sort of way — if Wikipedia has taught me anything at all, it would be that it's actually possible to do things far worse than the way they've always been done.
Nothing intrinsic about it though — you have to work mightily all thro' the night to screw things up that badly.
Jon Awbrey
31 Jan 2009, 3:21am
QUOTE
@Delphinidae
People are impressed most strongly by their own experiences and only incidentally by the experiences of others. Most of the comments that I hear from current subscribers to the Wikipediac Belief System are just the sorts of things that I myself found myself saying in my sweet but brief honeymoon period with Wikipedia just about this time 3 years ago.
Having been a critic of all things establishment for about as long as I can remember, it is amusing to find myself ironically caged with "people who labour under the delusion that more 'official'/conventional sources (of uncontentious information) are intrinsically superior". That's okay, I know you don't know me very well, but you are right in a funny sort of way — if Wikipedia has taught me anything at all, it would be that it's actually possible to do things far worse than the way they've always been done.
Nothing intrinsic about it though — you have to work mightily all thro' the night to screw things up that badly.
Jon Awbrey
31 Jan 2009, 3:21am
Da capo al finito —
Seriously though, Padraig, those of us who have been tracking media reactions to Wikipedia for what feels like a whole darn millennium may continue to marvel at the knack that Mr Wales exhibits for inciting riot after riot of "Future News" reports that all seem to start out, "Wikipedia (Co-)-Founder To Dangle Some X-citing New Improvement Or Other After That Infinitive You Just Raced Past". But some of us still hope to see responsible techno-journalists on this side of the Wiki-Curtain remembering the evanescent past just a little a bit better and conducting a bit more old-fangled trial-balloon puncturing than it takes to sleepwalk their way through the infinitive recycling of Wikipediot Flash-In-The-Pan PR.
Readers who want a sample of what I'm talking about might take a gander at the Media Forums of The Wikipedia Review.
Jon Awbrey
31 Jan 2009, 5:20pm
QUOTE
Seriously though, Padraig, those of us who have been tracking media reactions to Wikipedia for what feels like a whole darn millennium may continue to marvel at the knack that Mr Wales exhibits for inciting riot after riot of "Future News" reports that all seem to start out, "Wikipedia (Co-)-Founder To Dangle Some X-citing New Improvement Or Other After That Infinitive You Just Raced Past". But some of us still hope to see responsible techno-journalists on this side of the Wiki-Curtain remembering the evanescent past just a little a bit better and conducting a bit more old-fangled trial-balloon puncturing than it takes to sleepwalk their way through the infinitive recycling of Wikipediot Flash-In-The-Pan PR.
Readers who want a sample of what I'm talking about might take a gander at the Media Forums of The Wikipedia Review.
Jon Awbrey
31 Jan 2009, 5:20pm
Comment Is Free 
Facts Not As Sacred As They Used To Be 
One of the more bizarre
and outrageous 
aspects of this whole discussion has been that all of Greg's comments, save one, were censored 
by the Da 
Guardian moderators — 
Naturally, my Bleeding ♥ Liberal
Love for the Lefty Labourers at Da Gawdian remains uncritically 
undiminished, but still, I find this un-revolting development a bit dis-♥-ening and not a little distressing 
Ja, Ja, Ja
Facts Not As Sacred As They Used To Be One of the more bizarre
and outrageous aspects of this whole discussion has been that all of Greg's comments, save one, were censored by the Da Guardian moderators — Naturally, my Bleeding ♥ Liberal
Love for the Lefty Labourers at Da Gawdian remains uncritically undiminished, but still, I find this un-revolting development a bit dis-♥-ening and not a little distressing Ja, Ja, Ja
This thread has languished largely unnoticed in the media feed. It deserves further attention.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.