3 ms·

Yes! Finally, people are starting to notice the problems with Wikipe— > The Daily Mail ...Right. Seriously, why is it that every time someone criticises Wiki

Yes! Finally, people are starting to notice the problems with Wikipe— > The Daily Mail ...Right. Seriously, why is it that every time someone criticises Wikipedia, it has to be in this sensationalist, tabloid-esque manner, and often for the stupidest reasons possible? > ‘Who are you?’ he inquired testily. ‘Graham McCann,’ I replied. ‘I very much doubt you are who you say you are,’ he declared. But of course they would doubt it. Anyone can go on the Internet and claim they are Graham McCann without providing any proof. They know just as much about his identity as he knows about theirs. This is a striking lack of self-awareness on his part. Or Internet literacy. Not that I think this is much of an excuse for them; it's still wrong that Wikipedia doesn't provide any avenue for subject of articles to provide feedback/corrections in a more reliable manner. The only way to get them to correct anything is to go to a tabloid journalist and provide them fodder for a 'Wikipedia is stupid and mean!!!11' article.

paublyrne 10y ago
Anyone can go on the Internet and claim they are Graham McCann without providing any proof I read through a lot of the conversation between Mr McCann and one of the Wiki editors. I have a lot of empathy for the former. It is the case that the editor doubted the identity of the man he was conversing with, but Wikipedia should have simple, clear protocols for people to prove their identity for such cases. It's not Mr McCann's fault that they don't. Instead the editor sneered, and was generally rude and unpleasant to him. If I phoned up my bank to discuss my account and couldn't prove I was who I said I was, I would nevertheless expect courtesy, politeness, and professionalism. Wiki is a non profit, and the editors are not professionals, but it is one of the most visited websites on the internet. I actually suspect that the basic premise of a universal encyclopaedia staffed by volunteers and run on a non profit basis may be fundamentally flawed.
- pwdisswordfish 10y ago
  I've never worked in a call centre, but from what I heard about that job, it can be some very emotionally draining work where you have to deal with all sorts of inane and entitled people, and you can easily lose your temper and/or faith in humanity. (Teachers have it worse: they also have to deal with their children.) And Wikipedia can be even worse, with all its perverse incentives and selective enforcement. I'm not surprised that Wikipedians don't bother with politeness. Especially in situations like this, where trolls abound. > I actually suspect that the basic premise of a universal encyclopaedia staffed by volunteers and run on a non profit basis may be fundamentally flawed. I agree, but I doubt a change is going to happen. It's just too convenient an arrangement for the WMF and Jimbo Wales: they sit on loads of money they get for basically little more than keeping the servers powered, and he can just present himself as a Philantropist™ by going to conferences and cashing speaking fees, without taking any actual responsibility for the project he ostensibly runs.
vacri 10y ago
> Finally, people are starting to notice the problems with Wiki People have been bitching about Wikipedia for over a decade now. Always they keep predicting its doom.
- pwdisswordfish 10y ago
  I think that's the problem — they are 'bitching' and are therefore dismissed as 'haters'. For the rest of the populace, Wikipedia is 'good enough' to casually link to. And those complainers often have no appreciation for the circumstances which made it what it is. Many complaints are of the form 'there is an cabal of admins who engage in a conspiracy against me!', or 'how dare they want to delete MY article about my garage band that would otherwise gather dust for the next 20 years!'; and even more substantive criticisms are often coated in sensationalist language, which hurts their credibility, as in this article. No wonder they are not listened to. A dispassionate analysis of the flaws of Wikipedia would be helpful, but so far I haven't seen a single one.
  - bigbugbag 10y ago
    > Many complaints are of the form 'there is an cabal of admins who engage in a conspiracy against me!' Well, it turned out to be true that wikipedia admins had a place to discuss contributors and coordinate actions against them. It made quite a ruckus at the time. A compendium of wikipedia criticism has been posted here: http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/08/16/a-compendium-of-wikipedia-criticism/ http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/08/16/a-compendium-of-wikiped...
    - pwdisswordfish 10y ago
      That won't do. This is just a list of evidence-free assertions. I'm generally unimpressed with Wikipediocracy: they engage in exactly the kind of sensationalism that I'm so tired of.

paublyrne 10y ago

Anyone can go on the Internet and claim they are Graham McCann without providing any proof I read through a lot of the conversation between Mr McCann and one of the Wiki editors. I have a lot of empathy for the former. It is the case that the editor doubted the identity of the man he was conversing with, but Wikipedia should have simple, clear protocols for people to prove their identity for such cases. It's not Mr McCann's fault that they don't. Instead the editor sneered, and was generally rude and unpleasant to him. If I phoned up my bank to discuss my account and couldn't prove I was who I said I was, I would nevertheless expect courtesy, politeness, and professionalism. Wiki is a non profit, and the editors are not professionals, but it is one of the most visited websites on the internet. I actually suspect that the basic premise of a universal encyclopaedia staffed by volunteers and run on a non profit basis may be fundamentally flawed.

pwdisswordfish 10y ago
I've never worked in a call centre, but from what I heard about that job, it can be some very emotionally draining work where you have to deal with all sorts of inane and entitled people, and you can easily lose your temper and/or faith in humanity. (Teachers have it worse: they also have to deal with their children.) And Wikipedia can be even worse, with all its perverse incentives and selective enforcement. I'm not surprised that Wikipedians don't bother with politeness. Especially in situations like this, where trolls abound. > I actually suspect that the basic premise of a universal encyclopaedia staffed by volunteers and run on a non profit basis may be fundamentally flawed. I agree, but I doubt a change is going to happen. It's just too convenient an arrangement for the WMF and Jimbo Wales: they sit on loads of money they get for basically little more than keeping the servers powered, and he can just present himself as a Philantropist™ by going to conferences and cashing speaking fees, without taking any actual responsibility for the project he ostensibly runs.

vacri 10y ago

> Finally, people are starting to notice the problems with Wiki People have been bitching about Wikipedia for over a decade now. Always they keep predicting its doom.

pwdisswordfish 10y ago
I think that's the problem — they are 'bitching' and are therefore dismissed as 'haters'. For the rest of the populace, Wikipedia is 'good enough' to casually link to. And those complainers often have no appreciation for the circumstances which made it what it is. Many complaints are of the form 'there is an cabal of admins who engage in a conspiracy against me!', or 'how dare they want to delete MY article about my garage band that would otherwise gather dust for the next 20 years!'; and even more substantive criticisms are often coated in sensationalist language, which hurts their credibility, as in this article. No wonder they are not listened to. A dispassionate analysis of the flaws of Wikipedia would be helpful, but so far I haven't seen a single one.
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  > Many complaints are of the form 'there is an cabal of admins who engage in a conspiracy against me!' Well, it turned out to be true that wikipedia admins had a place to discuss contributors and coordinate actions against them. It made quite a ruckus at the time. A compendium of wikipedia criticism has been posted here: http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/08/16/a-compendium-of-wikipedia-criticism/ http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/08/16/a-compendium-of-wikiped...
  - pwdisswordfish 10y ago
    That won't do. This is just a list of evidence-free assertions. I'm generally unimpressed with Wikipediocracy: they engage in exactly the kind of sensationalism that I'm so tired of.