tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18934603.post113565070073304511..comments2024-02-26T10:25:52.212-08:00Comments on The Radical Libertarian: Wikipedia : the power of individualismAaron Kinneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18934603.post-53636273498924355542011-09-26T07:47:29.460-07:002011-09-26T07:47:29.460-07:00Five years later, and people have begun to wise up...Five years later, and people have begun to wise up about ol' Wiki.<br /><br />Change and realization of uncomfortable truths takes time.Scryer's Evehttp://scryerseve.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18934603.post-35862131732819693902010-01-08T21:31:04.005-08:002010-01-08T21:31:04.005-08:00Mr. Tremblay, if you really believe that "Wik...Mr. Tremblay, if you really believe that "Wikipedia is more controlled and checked than any encyclopedia in the world", then I am forced to conclude that you are completely delusional. <br /><br />Wikipedia has so many problems, no one can even list (or find) them all. Some of them are systemic, and deeply structural, being based on this "no leadership" model.<br /><br />There IS leadership--it's just a very, very corrupt and disbursed leadership. Said leaders (administrators and bureaucrats) tend to focus obsessively on articles they personally find interesting, and ignore all else. These articles tend to be "controversial", and end up being the center of editwars routinely. <br /><br />So, as a result, we have an alleged "encyclopedia" which gives massive attention to things that young men with plenty of time on their hands care about--computer gaming, TV shows, cartoons and comic books, sports and the like--while giving short shrift to subjects that young men find tedious (geography, sciences, philosophy etc). The quality of those famous 3,000,000 articles is, according to my own research, rather poor. I would say that 60% or more of them are "stubs", having virtually no informational content. And even articles with information are sometimes utter unreferenced personal babblings, posted by some random person who might (and often provably does) have a personal interest in that article. <br /><br />I can post my own references, if you wish.metasonixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13224183744460116842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18934603.post-58142156459762938212010-01-08T08:40:16.185-08:002010-01-08T08:40:16.185-08:00Sigh...
While you may be too far gone to even con...Sigh...<br /><br />While you may be too far gone to even consider it, have you spent any time looking at this study?<br /><br />http://www.mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study<br /><br />Or looking at this Dartmouth discussion?<br /><br />http://chance.dartmouth.edu/chancewiki/index.php/Chance_News_31#The_Unbreakable_Wikipedia.3F<br /><br />I'm known fairly widely as a critic of Wikipedia. I am not a critic of individualism or of collaborative editing. I am a critic of the hopeless indifference of the Wikimedia Foundation to apply any standards and tools to embrace the STABILITY of the content on Wikipedia that happens to have somehow ended up in an accurate state.<br /><br />The problem with Wikipedia is that the truth keeps getting manipulated back to garbage, over and over again. And that's Jimmy Wales' business model. He is not interested in truth or knowledge. He is interested in human participation and addiction.Gregory Kohshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17207068772106028805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18934603.post-1141524216562296892006-03-04T18:03:00.000-08:002006-03-04T18:03:00.000-08:00Another important point: The detractors of the int...Another important point: The detractors of the internet can only attack it with one method: censorship and blocking. They try to censor and stop the information from being available. It is the digital equivalent of a book burning.Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18934603.post-1141524062789646192006-03-04T18:01:00.000-08:002006-03-04T18:01:00.000-08:00This is a fucking great post. I love this part esp...This is a fucking great post. <BR/><BR/>I love this part especially:<BR/><BR/><I>Wikipedia's detractors attack it because it is individualistic, and has no central authority. It is this idea of emergent information, of natural law, of the absence of central design, that they cannot stand, that they cannot understand.</I><BR/><BR/>Franc this reminds me of something I was thinking about awhile back. The idea of emergent information in the absence of central design is what theists and statists cannot understand, or at least DO not understand. This is a very important principle of the reality that we exist in, and it is a MAJOR stumbling block for most people that prevents them from agreeing with, or even understanding, the atheist and anarchist (and scientific) arguments. <BR/><BR/>We need to use real world examples like Wikipedia and free economic markets and such to stress the power, superiority, and inherent self-correcting stability of unregulated, decentralized systems. There are numerous examples all throughout nature and the human world, and we need to make it a point to reference these examples and stress this principle more. <BR/><BR/>Good job with talking about Wikipedia!Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.com