This is sort of a follow-up to my Wiki Effect post a few days ago, but I happened across this like-minded commentary by David Weinberger entitled Why the media can’t get Wikipedia right. I agree with what he has to say, and his Anti-Executive Summary at the top of the article made me laugh out loud.
Things this piece does not say.
- Wikipedia is always right
- Wikipedia will asymptotically achieve a point of total rightness
- Wikipedia is the only source anyone should consult
- Wikipedia is impervious to criticism
- Wikipedia is better than science, sex and scientific sex
- Wikipedia is totally new and there’s never been anything like it
- Anyone who criticizes Wikipedia is a doody head
- Jimmy Wales is G-d.
It’s clear he’s had the same argument many times in the past.
Mmmmm… scientific sex.
4 thoughts on “Getting Wikipedia right”
I’ve sometimes said of a particularly good movie that it had all the necessary elements: sex, violence, sexual violence, and violent sex.
Well, OK, I said that in my younger days before I had kids that will eventually snoop around and find all of Dad’s internet droppings. Why in the world am I hitting ‘Post’ now?
Does anyone do Miller analogies anymore?
(sex + violence):(modern media)::(butter + sugar):(dessert)
I think I read somewhere that (they’re taking) | (they’ve taken) Miller analogies out of the SATs.
So I want to know does any body else use wikipedia and what for?
what was the most informatibve artical you found there?
What was the wierdest one you found?
I use wikipedia mostly durring my lunch time at work to just read up on stuff. the most informative artical I found was on the mineing and refineing
process for copper (because I learned about the job I have, and got to show off to co-workers ;p) the most interesting was probably on cheese witch I
actualy e-mailed to my self so I could finish reading it after work.
oh well, got wiki?
Comments are closed.