The World and Wikipedia - Andrew Dalby Options Rating

[sappho]

Did anyone read this book yet?

[Andrew Dalby]

I thought I'd look in ...

The fact that "unauthorized and objective" are the first words that appear on the cover ... is enough reason for me not to pick it up.

We decided you'd be right! Hence, although those words appeared on a draft of the cover (maybe still visible on some websites), they don't appear on printed copies.

If the insinuation above is correct -- that Dalby authored his own bio on WP and maintained it with sockpuppets -- don't you think that might be relevant to the book? I haven't read it, but these types of issues are discussed, aren't they? Is Dalby writing objectively or from a self-interested point of view?

If he's playing games on WP and condemning the gameplayers in the book, it doesn't say much for his veracity. On the other hand, if he isn't pointing out that these types of things go on all the time on WP, he's leaving out a large part of the story.

It is relevant. The book discusses how important it is for anyone whose living depends on publicity to be on Wikipedia. I try to be honest about it, because of course this imperative applies to me as a writer:

‘Even in France,’ wrote Pierre Assouline (as if France is somehow less subject to such temptations), ‘certain specialists in self-promotion – artists and others – are clever enough to write for themselves, or have someone write for them, a long and favourable article out of proportion to their importance.’ How very true that is. I have to confess that I’ve edited the Andrew Dalby biography (to add references and to correct a name in the text: ‘Gonzalo Pizarro’, not a personal friend); and although I didn’t create the page, I have to admit that I wasn’t unaware of its creation; and all this happened even though I’m in France ...

I have a copy of Dalby's book. It's quite poorly written and organized, and very fanboyish.

I'm sorry you have that impression (especially because you write well). People tell me that I write well: if it's true at all, it's true when I write slowly. We wanted to get this book out fast, and the publishers managed it extremely well: it was being distributed less than eight weeks after I completed the final chapter. Believe me, that's rare. But not enough time devoted to re-reading, I guess.

I just can't take seriously a book that makes statements like this:

Durova and SlimVirgin, high-profile Wikipedians, brave enough to court all kinds of controversy, are among those who have achieved this fame and have withstood the pressure of scurrilous attacks from the shadows beyond the encyclopedia. I have already mentioned some others whose names are bandied about on the wikifringes and who go on working: Raul654, Eloquence and Danny, Anthere and David.Monniaux are among them. "

Knowing the histories of those "brave" people, this statement is either totally insane, or was intended to be satirical--and failed.

On this you're very wrong. I don't say that these or any Wikipedians do everything right. I say that these and some others, because of their work on the site, face personal attacks, harassment, public verbal abuse -- over long periods -- that might well be more than you or I could stand up to.

This post has been edited by Andrew Dalby: Sat 7th November 2009, 4:36pm

[Cedric]

I thought I'd look in ...

The fact that "unauthorized and objective" are the first words that appear on the cover ... is enough reason for me not to pick it up.

We decided you'd be right! Hence, although those words appeared on a draft of the cover (maybe still visible on some websites), they don't appear on printed copies.

I see. Further research suggests it was changed to "confessions of a contributor".

You may want to call your publisher-- it would appear that theirs is among the "some websites" that are still displaying the earlier draft image.

[Andrew Dalby]

You may want to call your publisher-- it would appear that theirs is among the "some websites" that are still displaying the earlier draft image.

Ha!

Hello Andrew. I am intrigued to learn that there is at least one other person who reads medieval Latin (Andrew claims to read it in bed). Welcome, Andrew. I am puzzled our paths never crossed ... I was impressed by the quality of your contributions to the Latin Wikipedia.

I'm puzzled too. I haven't yet explored the full story of your struggles on Wikipedia, but I've made a start.

I usually avoid philosophy, though I encounter occasional marginal figures, such as John of Garland. I'm trying to improve Vicipaedia, and my Latin, at the same time. There's plenty to do, and fewer content disputes ...

[Peter Damian]

I'm puzzled too. I haven't yet explored the full story of your struggles on Wikipedia, but I've made a start.

There is a brief summary of my concerns about Wikipedia here

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...about_Wikipedia

Namely, the plague of cruft and fanboy material that afflicts Wikipedia, particularly (for me) in the area of pseudo-psychology, pop philosophy, pedophilia and other areas. If you have been involved in those battlegrounds, which I suspect you haven't, Andrew, it is impossible to have a 'neutral point of view' about Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 7th November 2009, 9:46pm