Fri 16th December 2011, 1:55am
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 15th December 2011, 6:30pm)
QUOTE(gomi @ Thu 15th December 2011, 5:23pm)
As one might imagine, I have a few differences with Greg about emphasis, but by and large I think the presentation was extremely well put-together, and represented substantial research and good organization.
A minor quibble is that, in my opinion, it used far too many Powerpoint builds, fly-ins, and other dynamics.
I try to avoid installing buggy microsoft crap on my machine. Could somebody provide a synopsis?
There's PowerPoint Viewer
, which might not be quite the load on your computer. Or, I might actually narrate this and turn it into a video for YouTube.
But, until then, the synopsis is fairly simple:
(1) Point out Wikipedia's flaws. Flaws as enumerated by the co-founders of Wikipedia!
(2) Wikipedia has an (increasing) stranglehold on Google. Verbally, I mentioned monoculture in farming (thanks, Gomi)!
(3) The University of Minnesota found that Wikipedia's accuracy is not improving over time.
(4) Wikipedia is inferior to the Medscape Drug Reference, when it comes to pharma info. (Thank you, Mbz1, was it?)
(5) The vandalism of U.S. Senators study.
(6) About a dozen quick examples of journalists misusing Wikipedia, and journalists noting Wikipedia's mistakes.
(7) Where was Mike Ilitch born? (Includes a rage face -- thanks, Zoloft!)
(8) Comparing article ledes from various sources. Audience participation -- they each select the lede they prefer -- almost guaranteed that the majority will not choose Wikipedia. Some verbal comments that aren't conveyed in the PowerPoint.
(9) Cheltenham High School isn't "in" Wyncote, PA, despite what Wikipedia teaches.
(10) Cheltenham doesn't have a radio station, despite what a crafty vandal sneaked into the Wikipedia article about the school. The hoax stuck for over 6 weeks and 2,200 page views.
(11) Three (anonymized) examples of Wikipedia Review paid editing clients whose Wikipedia situations were improved with my help.
(12) Other sources of Wikipedia criticism, sign off, and thank you.
Epilogue -- published to the deck after the live presentation was completed; itemizing the results of a survey I administered to the students (and 3 teachers), immediately prior to the talk.