The World and Wikipedia - Andrew Dalby Options Rating

[sappho]

Did anyone read this book yet?

[Cedric]

Did anyone read this book yet?

The fact that "unauthorized and objective" are the first words that appear on the cover, and that Slim Shanky appears to recommend it, is enough reason for me not to pick it up. Still, there is some indication that this book is not as fluffy and puffy as Andrew Lih's book.

Note also that Dalby has had a Wikipedia account since February 2006, and he has a BLP which he has edited himself many times.

[A Horse With No Name]

I was planning to purchase a copy. It appears to be self-published, which usually suggests the amateur hour, and I sincerely hope the book doesn't waste time circling about the inevitable chair throwing that increasingly passes for adult conversation and academic discussion.

[Peter Damian]

Note also that Dalby has had a Wikipedia account since February 2006, and he has a BLP which he has edited himself many times.

When I last looked at him, I was impressed by his authorship of many articles in quite good Latin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Dalby/Begun

Cāseus (-ī, m.) est cibus solidus factus e lacte vaccarum, caprarum, ovium, vel aliorum mammalium.
http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseus

Cheese is solid food made from the milk of cows, goats, sheep or of other mammals.


This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 2nd November 2009, 4:35pm

[Peter Damian]

Some interesting material in his user space here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_D...d_and_Wikipedia

where he mentions the Law incident.

[A Horse With No Name]

Some interesting material in his user space here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_D...d_and_Wikipedia

where he mentions the Law incident.

Law is not in the book, but ChildofMidnight and his weirdly funny food obsessions are.

This is a riot, considering who gets into the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_D...ned_in_the_book

I especially like that Keeper76 is in the book. What has he ever done except complain about how boring it is to be an admin?

[thekohser]

Law is not in the book, but ChildofMidnight and his weirdly funny food obsessions are.

This is a riot, considering who gets into the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_D...ned_in_the_book

I especially like that Keeper76 is in the book. What has he ever done except complain about how boring it is to be an admin?

No mention of User:Wikipedia Review or User:Thekohser? Can't be a very informative book, then.

[SB_Johnny]

Welcome to WR, sappho. This your book, perchance?

[sappho]

Actually it's not my book; I just happened to think it was rather good and was interested to see what a bunch of other editors thought.
Seems to be a bit of rivalry happening?

I especially like that Keeper76 is in the book. What has he ever done except complain about how boring it is to be an admin?

Funny, Dalby only mentions Keeper76 for closing a debate - one he didn't take a part in.

[Cedric]

Actually it's not my book; I just happened to think it was rather good and was interested to see what a bunch of other editors thought.

Ah. So just "living in The Aquitaine in a very similar way", then.

[John Limey]

I'm rather skeptical of a book only held in eight libraries in the whole world and evidently self-published. I also hesitate to read anything that David Shankbone calls "an excellent resource" The one review on Amazon also suggests that it may be even more fanboyish than the Lih book.

It's really time for someone to step up and write a serious, scholarly account of Wikipedia (complete with reference to the peer reviewed literature) and release it through a major university press.

[Cedric]

Having now read Slim Shanky's full review, even if I take it at face value (always a leap of faith with Slim Shanky), I would still have to give the book a rating of "UB".

[thekohser]

Shankbone needs a proofreader:

including a well-known example written about by Bill Gates with Microsoft’s effort to produce Encarta

World does an admirable attempt to craft narrative...

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 3rd November 2009, 4:41pm

[Peter Damian]

Having now read Slim Shanky's full review, even if I take it at face value (always a leap of faith with Slim Shanky), I would still have to give the book a rating of "UB".

No understand "UB"

[A Horse With No Name]

Funny, Dalby only mentions Keeper76 for closing a debate - one he didn't take a part in.

Great research, Mr. Dalby.

Actually, Keeper could get a brief mention for the period in 2008 when his talk page became a mini-MySpace with every nutty character dropping in for jokes, complaints, baseball talk and (my favorite) a barnstar competition. It was a lot of fun for awhile, and it showed that Wikipedia could foster a positive atmosphere. But that kind of stuff was later discouraged.

It's really time for someone to step up and write a serious, scholarly account of Wikipedia (complete with reference to the peer reviewed literature) and release it through a major university press.

And not make money on the book, or get any serious promotion or proper commercial distribution? Thanks, I know about the university press system in the US -- wrong way to go on this subject, sadly.

[CharlotteWebb]

…I would still have to give the book a rating of "UB".

No understand "UB"

Ullan Bataar I think.

That or utter bollocks.

[Cedric]

…I would still have to give the book a rating of "UB".

No understand "UB"

Ullan Bataar I think.

Nope.

That or utter bollocks.

Correct.

[carbuncle]

Having now read Slim Shanky's full review, even if I take it at face value (always a leap of faith with Slim Shanky), I would still have to give the book a rating of "UB".

It was subtle, but did I detect a hint of self-serving argument from Shankbone in the section entitled "Default to keep when no consensus to delete"? I guess he hasn't given up on having his own WP article yet.

[Somey]

It was subtle, but did I detect a hint of self-serving argument from Shankbone in the section entitled "Default to keep when no consensus to delete"? I guess he hasn't given up on having his own WP article yet.

And he won't, ever.

As for the Dalby book, I guess I'll have to read it to be strictly fair about it, but by all accounts it appears that the vast preponderance of the "research" he did on it was purely based on his own interactions with, and reactions to, other Wikipedians on Wikipedia. If there's any negative criticism in it, that's probably due to the fact that some forms of negative criticism are increasingly appearing on Wikipedia itself due to the fact that more and more WP'ers are finally figuring out how messed up it all is.

The book doesn't appear to have any substantive outsider perspective to it at all, and therefore any attempt to sell it as "objective" is probably just false advertising.

[GlassBeadGame]

Did anyone read this book yet?

The fact that "unauthorized and objective" are the first words that appear on the cover, and that Slim Shanky appears to recommend it, is enough reason for me not to pick it up. Still, there is some indication that this book is not as fluffy and puffy as Andrew Lih's book.

Note also that Dalby has had a Wikipedia account since February 2006, and he has a BLP which he has edited himself many times.

It seems much worse than Lih's book. Lih only lightly touched on any topics relating to criticism of Wikipedia but when he did he was fairly even handed.