I haven't seen it, and I won't be rushing to the newstand to grab the issue, but according to this source, Jimbo has a letter published in the new issue:

"Wikipedia is based on trust and love". What a bunch of bullshit.

What is Wikipedia based on, anyway? Does anyone even know? It seems to be based on pettiness, arrogance, and vindictiveness from what I can tell...

Anyhoo, this just sounds like cultspeak, pure and simple. And we've been seeing more and more of it lately... Either they've decided it's too much trouble to hide the fact that they're a cult, or they actually don't even realize it themselves. I'm not sure which is scarier.

"Misjudged the issue"? I'm guessing that means he didn't think it was a serious problem until the press got hold of it...?

You forgot narcissism.

Wikipedia is immoral and corrupt - It's is a virus and a parasite.

What does he think we are — 12?

That's one of the occupational hazards of spending too much time with Wikimanics — You start to think that everybody is.

Jonny

Right. So... where do we stand now, at the risk of alienating what few friends we have left among the moderates...?

- Petty
- Arrogant
- Vindictive
- Narcissistic (sorry I forgot - me of all people!)
- Immoral
- Corrupt
- Parasitic
- Cultish

I guess we could add two more to bring it to an even ten - then maybe we could send it to David Letterman. I've already put in four, though, so that's more than my share already...

Still, no matter what, I think we should point out that they're sexually unappealing as well, just to be extra-mean!

Hmmm. The Boy Scouts had 12. Maybe I can think up a 12-letter acronym.

Working ...

Actually ... Sleeping ...

But working all the same ...

There is no off switch on the acronym machine ...

Jonny

Pokemon characters?

And porn stars.

Wikipedia is based entirely on scavenging other people's work.

I have never understood how Wikipedia can make the world a better place. "Free knowledge"? Listen, the Internet is full of "free knowledge" (you just have to be careful about it). Heaven forfend we should all start going to the library and read the books for free.

How on earth does Wikipedia help orphans in Africa or anywhere else that doesn't have Internet access? This whole idea of "freeing knowledge" is, to me anyway, a load of hippie hogwash. If you want people to have "free knowledge", donate books, be a missionary or teacher, be a Big Brother or Sister, or teach someone how to read. Something like those things!

I admire the idealism of the Wiki, but I fear its misplaced. If someone can prove to me one person who's life has been changed by reading Wikipedia, I'll gladly eat my own words.

Otherwise, I just think its a place where information is aggregated. Some of it is good, some of it is bad. I enjoy the Wiki, but if it was created to "make the world a better place" and is based on that alone, then that is truly sad to me.

You mean in a good way, right?
And I mean — besides Jimbo ...

Jonny

If Wikipedia is built on trust and love, I guess the "trust" is borne out in the policy WP:AGF. However, how is the "love" part borne out?

I mean, really -- how am I (the devoted Wikipedia supporter) supposed to manifest my "love" to help build the project? Do I French kiss Ryan Jordan? Am I supposed to cuddle with SlimVirgin?

Imagine if Encyclopedia Britannica announced that its core editorial principles in building the most accurate, reliable compendium of information were "trust and love"? How foolish would that look?

Personally, I think a much better reference book is built on the principles of "verification and skepticism". But, that would be a lot of hard work. I'm not sure Wikipedians are up for that gig, being that 99.9% of them aren't getting paid to do the work.

Greg

I cant find the emoticon for

!S!H!U!D!D!E!R!

I guess my old standby,

The Emeticon —

will have to do.

Jonny

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog...ves/004301.html

A few days ago, Barbara Partee started up an email discussion about an effort by Yuri Koryakov to "[get] linguists organized to fill in the many gaps in linguistics coverage in the Russian-language wikipedia, both in biographies of linguists and in content articles", suggesting that a comparable effort for the English-language wikipedia would be a Good Thing. (If you read Linguist List, you'll probably be hearing more about this before long.) This morning, Chris Potts contributed an encouraging anecdote:

In my large intro course yesterday, there was an unfamiliar hand in the air a lot of the time, and the student's questions and insights were the best I've had all semester. It was puzzling, because I didn't recognize him, and he seemed to know much more about syntax than one would expect. (It was our first official day on the topic.)

After class, he came to the front and introduced himself as a prospective student, just out of high school. He said linguistics was his passion in high school. I said, "What? How?" And he replied, "Wikipedia".

I suspect he was lying. If linguistics really was his passion, he would have come up with more than a one-word reply.

No, really, I'm sure he was a cunning linguist, and he learned it all from Wikipudia.

I hope this makes it easier to eat yer words ...

Jonny

I'll have to remove my foot first before eating my words, though.

I may as well explain about my finding Wikipedia, this forum, and my thoughts about the Wiki.

I don't know how I found the Wiki, but I was likely researching something for college. My professors were just finding out about the Wiki and thought it was the greatest thing ever. (This next part may make some academics here have a heart attack so be wary!) I and my friends even cited and used Wikipedia in some of our college papers (not the big thesis or term-style papers, of course) and we received excellent grades.

I don't remember how I got to it, but I found Daniel Brandt's article and found a reference to the Katefan0 fiasco and a link to here. Here, I discovered that the Wiki had its weaknesses, which is partly why I never cited Wikipedia in any of my major papers from that point on.

I have determined that the Wiki can be a good starting point for getting a very broad idea of some area one wishes to research. If an article is maintained by those that truly understand the article's subject and they are able to fend off those wishing to pollute the article with Freudian images and those that think they know about the subject, then that article is truly one of the best and few.

I do not believe the Wiki is inherently evil. It requires immense reform with particular attention to the rights of living people with articles and article quality and factuality. There are maybe a tiny minority here who want the Wiki obliterated and in all probability there are those on dark forums in dark places plotting dark plots against the Wiki, but I for one don't wish the Wiki to be destroyed. Like many here, I would like to see major reforms! I want the Wiki to be saved!

It is good that some are benefitting from the Wiki as the aspiring linguist did. Sorry for the long post. Now I resolve never to say anything like "I'll eat my own words" ever again. Thank you. (Have we gotten off topic?)

Something else to consider is that while Wikipedia may be (or at least may appear to be) more or less impervious to attempts to destroy it from without, however serious or concerted those efforts might be, it is probably not at all immune to self-destruction.

And not that there aren't those, certainly here, who wouldn't be beyond giving it a little helpful nudge in that general direction.

Me, I'll admit to a certain amount of schadenfreude should that happen ...

Yes. I find it particularly telling re: intellectual honesty that some wikipedia spin-doctors are willing to accept, with no supporting evidence, statements in support of their darling ... while other spin-doctors (e.g. David Gerard) are using the "heap of shit" observation to further a "don't trust anything you read, period" position. If it's good, it's good, and if its bad, its still good! (Every time this is dragged out as some kind of benefit of Wikipedia, the question is begged: why is an army of unpaid labour creating a pile of shit needed to prove this point when, with no extra work whatsoever, the entire Internet can be used as an example? Maybe Gerard has only recently twigged onto the fact that, gosh golly, some people are misinformed or even -- oh the horror of it! -- lie?)

Just for the record, the full text of the letter was posted to WhinyEN-L today:


So it wasn't OK to lie to a reporter - fair enough - but what about, you know, the other Wikipedians?

And only love can rebuild trust? What about, like, credibility?

Apparently this wasn't included in the online edition, though I suspect it will be added there eventually.

This idea is widespread, but truly dangerous. If the first words you see on a subject are wrong, or lies, or distortions, their wrongness forever remains, consciously or not, as the foundation of your knowledge on the subject.

Some Wikipedia articles are so untruthful and so treacherously deceptive that they taint your "starting point" so much that your further research can never remove the taint.

And some editors, even (especially?) the clueless ones, are skilled at malicious deception. (See THIS), for example.

The "editor" in question has a zero or near-zero record of legitimate additions to Wikipedia. He/she/it lurks around one or two articles and their talk pages, subverting the legitimate work of unsuspecting others. Like all malicious editors, h/s/i includes enough "good" work (like occasionally reverting vandalism) to provide believable cover.

Basically, h/s/i is a disciple/meatpuppet of His Vileness Raul654, making changes for him, getting his approval for h/s/i own mischief, and together promoting their joint Points Of View. Here's one EXAMPLE.

You can see the pattern by looking HERE and repeatedly searching for Raul.

All this, for a not-very-bright editor who's a near-zero in the overall scheme of things. Multiply it by hundreds or thousands, and you'll get an idea of Wikipedia's corruption.

At a second level of deception, the evil Raul's User Page presents him as a thoroughly rational, highly-awarded, decent human being. (No deception here. Just keep on moving along.)