If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- If You Want To Know Why Section 230 Matters, Just Ask Wikimedia: Without It, There'd Be No Wikipedia
- Hongkongers Battle Supporters Of Beijing For The Soul Of The Chinese-Language Wikipedia
- Copyright Trolling/SEO Scam, Changing The Photo Credits On Wikimedia Commons
- Content Moderation Case Studies: Using AI To Detect Problematic Edits On Wikipedia (2015)
- Content Moderation Case Study: Can An Open Encyclopedia Handle Disinformation? (2005)
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You just have to
Wiki-based pages are brilliant - IF you know how to use them correctly.
i.e Understand that the information is a collective effort
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reliability
One big problem I have noticed in news is that often people who write articles are not specialists in that particular field. So a news article about wikis may be written by someone who barely knows how to use a wordprocessor.
This problem coupled with the sensationalist trend news is following tends to result in some very big journalistic mistakes.
Even when facts are used they are often taken totally out of context or era.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why wiki is better
When a story hits TV with false info, there is virtually never any retraction.
When a story hits Wikipedia with false info, the correction appears in place, with a history of what the page used to say, and a log of the discussion surrounding the facts.
Which do you prefer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why wiki is better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
two cents worth
I guess the writer belives everything they see in writing.
Writers are Unreliable. Writers are Unreliable. Writers are Unreliable. Writers are Unreliable. Writers are Unreliable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: two cents worth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
# of Comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mysterious Comment Number
Yet the misnumbered comment mystery carries on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mysterious Comment Number
All I get is
Mysterious Comment Number by j0rg3 on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 8:20am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mysterious Comment Number
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mysterious Comment Number
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not quite as wrong as that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really about wiki
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opinionated know-nothings :-)
...or did I miss the sarcasm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
Frollo, the villain, stands upon a gargoyle. He raises his sword to strike Esmeralda, and says, “And He shall smite the wicked and plunge them into the fiery pit!” At that moment, the gargoyle breaks off, sending Frollo falling to his death into the courtyard, filled with molten lead that Quasimodo had spilled to stop the oncoming guards. The irony is that Frollo’s line is used in reference to Esmeralda, but instead it winds up applying to Frollo himself as he plunges into the fiery pit of molten lead.
Situations resembling poetic justice, but lacking the aspect of justice, may also be ascribed to the irony of fate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]