The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The Truth According To Wikipedia, Claire Gordon, Huffington Post
Rating  5
Newsfeed
post Mon 7th February 2011, 12:22am
Post #1


Postmaster General
********

Group: Bots
Posts: 3,272
Joined: Mon 3rd Sep 2007, 9:29pm
Member No.: 2,885



The Truth According To Wikipedia

Claire Gordon, Huffington Post
A few months ago, my friend was cited on the German Wikipedia entry for The Social Network. This was exciting, because I had just seen Das Social Network at …
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sarcasticidealist
post Mon 7th February 2011, 3:12am
Post #2


Head exploded.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined: Tue 22nd Jan 2008, 1:54am
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



This is a really excellent article, maybe the best article about Wikipedia I've read from somebody without an in-depth familiarity with the site.

I have nothing further to add.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Mon 7th February 2011, 3:29am
Post #3


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE

Having scanned some three score and ten articles on the Baloney Bias of Wikipedia'­s Lost Boys over the past week and commented on many of the more outlandish bits of regurgitat­ed hash from the Wikimedia Foundation­, I would like to thank you for your thoughtful and witty commentary on the non-issue at hand.

Jon AwbreyFebruary 6, 2011, 10:12 PM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 7th February 2011, 4:02am
Post #4


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE

It was great to see a reference again to "Wikipedia Art". A couple of my favorite pieces generated in response to that movement were a couple of musical manifestos that really put Wikipedia into perspectiv­e. Here are their videos:







This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Mon 7th February 2011, 7:48pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Tue 8th February 2011, 4:32pm
Post #5


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



One more time …

QUOTE

In its impact on the ecology of knowledge, Wikipedia amounts to a non-sustai­nable exploitati­on of cultural resources.

Wikipedia is analogous to a multinatio­nal timber conglomera­te that clear-cuts living forests to crank out its lumber and its pulp, with no understand­ing of the living system that it sucks on like a destructiv­e parasite.

Jon Awbrey07 Feb 2011 (6:00 PM)


Reply to objection —

QUOTE

I am saying that our cultural resources are cultivated­, develop, and evolve by means of processes that need to be valued as much as we value their products.

I am saying that Wikipedia Culture, as it currently exists in reality, and not in the fantasies of those who promote it, exploits the contents of our common culture in a way that undermines the very dynamics that created it.

Jon Awbrey08 Feb 2011 (11:20 AM)

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Wed 9th February 2011, 4:12pm
Post #6


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Continuing discussion …

QUOTE

John,

I think we have a good dialogue starting here, but these blog boxes get narrower and narrower as the reply tree grows, so I may have trouble sustaining the conversati­on on this site. Claire Gordon's article is one of the very few intelligen­t commentari­es on the supposed gender gap issue to come out of many score blogicles in the PR riot that Sue Gardner incited last week, so we dedicated a separate thread to it at The Wikipedia Review, namely here:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=32897

Since I can edit stuff better there, I'm thinking I might experiment with posting replies there first, and then copying them back here.

Jon Awbrey09 Feb 2011 (11:08 AM)

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Sat 19th February 2011, 7:06am
Post #7


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Sun 6th February 2011, 7:22pm) *

The Truth According To Wikipedia

Claire Gordon, Huffington Post
A few months ago, my friend was cited on the German Wikipedia entry for The Social Network. This was exciting, because I had just seen Das Social Network at …


QUOTE

Update. There are now several threads at The Wikipedia Review on this and related topics:

1. Wikipedia Women Facebook Group — http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=33052
2. WMF GenderGap Discussion Forum — http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=33040
3. Concern About Porn On Wikipedia — http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=33021
4. Media Coverage Around The World — http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=32780

Jon Awbrey19 Feb 2011 (1:50 AM)

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sat 19th February 2011, 8:53am
Post #8


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



An excellent article. It's not just women who are marginalised. It's anyone who is not a techie, anyone over 30, which includes middle-aged farts like myself, parents, people with some knowledge of medieval philosophy, people who have read a book etc etc.

QUOTE
But when this populist patina was peeled back last week, it revealed a scarily hierarchical and gender-skewed structure. Only 13% of Wikipedia's contributors are women, 2% of users perform 75% of edits, and the average age is in the mid-20s. The architects of today's conventional wisdom are by and large young and male.

Most obviously, the four billion people without access to the Internet cannot edit the Wikipedia entries on their own cultures. And among the wired, it is the male techy community that has established a monopoly on truth.

Today's most prolific truth-makers might be vandals and fools, and are definitely, for the most part, young, male and probably bored.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st 10 14, 2:52pm