This is a great article.
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Wed 8th August 2007, 2:15pm)
This article turned out to not be any good, despite the title.
You're kidding right? The author of the article that praised her "SEO Tips & Tactics from a Wikipedia Insider" (which I wont give her the due credit of linking to) article and he turned and turned around, after reading all the comments in his article praising her article
, to say the following:
Since my posting I received a few comments on the posting that were obviously from people who felt very strongly that Wikipedia, and in particular Durova, had serious issues with ethics. In that regard I have little doubt that these people had previously poor experiences with Wikipedia/Durova and have an axe to grind; the anger was palpable. One of the comments even revealed Durova's real name (which I chose not to allow) and linked to a page where unkindly and distasteful words are shared about Wikipedia and Durova.
The complainants' comments on StepForth's site and Search Engine Land's insinuate Wikipedia is run in a mafia-like manner where those who administrate the encyclopedia can be malicious when angered and may act without repercussions. Here are some quotes:
Followed by 6 paragraphs of Greg Kohs abuse story and a link to the ED article on Durova, which Ross Duran apparently read. His conclusions:
I cannot attest to the accuracy of the lengthy complaints against Durova and Wikipedia and I don't have the time or interest to thoroughly research the past (there appears to be a LOT to review). That said, if any of the complaints have an ounce of truth then Wikipedia has to be more cautious about the stance they take on content that may irreparably harm others or face a dmoz-like fate. On the flipside, those who post content on Wikipedia had better realize that whatever they post has ramifications on their own reputations so they had better be 100% certain of their sources and intentions.
Also I commend Durova for replying to the comments by noting that her current role as administrator can be circumvented by a vote by members in good standing. That said, I do wonder whether members in good standing would have any reason to oust a fellow member that may be of like mind. (i.e. who guards the guardians?)
I have to admit that a volunteer-operated site that has the ability to seriously harm a business's or a person's good reputation gives me the creeps. This is especially true for online encyclopedias like Wikipedia where content, by its social nature, tends to stray into gossip territory. I realize that this applies to many social media websites but very few have the massive power to affect opinion that Wikipedia currently has. If there is one thing that this whole scenario illustrates it is that Wikipedia's content, no matter who administrates it, should be heavily seasoned with salt. The same goes for any socially driven content online.
Dude, that's called "raised awareness", in a nutshell. (About a nutcase?)This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 9th August 2007, 7:09pm