Getting Wikipedia right

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.

Anti-Executive Summary
Things this piece does not say.

  1. Wikipedia is always right
  2. Wikipedia will asymptotically achieve a point of total rightness
  3. Wikipedia is the only source anyone should consult
  4. Wikipedia is impervious to criticism
  5. Wikipedia is better than science, sex and scientific sex
  6. Wikipedia is totally new and there’s never been anything like it
  7. Anyone who criticizes Wikipedia is a doody head
  8. 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”

  1. 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?

  2. I think I read somewhere that (they’re taking) | (they’ve taken) Miller analogies out of the SATs.

    The horror!


  3. 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.