QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 16th November 2009, 7:34pm)
Wow, three comments thus far on that story, and all critical of Jimmy Wales.
One of which is you.......
Still, Poynter is more likely to be critical of Jimbo, simply because it's a site for actual,
working medial professionals. Who get paid for it, even. Plus academics who deal with
writing and mass media.
There's supposedly considerable pent-up hatred for WP in that crowd. I once talked to a local
community-college instructor who didn't see the need to criticize WP, as he expected it
"to fail any day now". Yet he had no trouble expressing his disgust with it, and the way it is
run. His specialty is radio broadcasting, and he found a lot of badly-written articles on WP
on the subject. He tried to edit them, and found that whatever he wrote (regardless of how
well-sourced or verifiable it was) was reverted very quickly by "persons unknown".
I keep hearing comments like that. Odd, that they don't have any impact. "Journalists" are
usually still fawning over Jimbo, even though his monster might put them out of work....
This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Tue 17th November 2009, 5:03am
Poynter Interviews Jimmy Wales, Associated Press considers Wikipedia as a news source
Mon 16th November 2009, 9:58pm
