http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25
Here is anther story about wikipedia, the open web encyclopeadia that can be edited by anyone (with an internet connection). The author argues that wikipedia is doomed because of its anti-elitist stance. I think this is very interesting. Can a project that is explicitly egalitarian overcome human nature of hoodlumism and self-agrandisment... Slashdot does a nice job of dealing with trolls through community point giving/taking which might be an interesting enhancement to wikipedia. The author here, though, believes that there is a pervasive anti-authoritarian, anti-expertise element that could gang up in such a system to push all the experts out. My idealist nature doesn't want to believe in such things... BTW Nick, the author uses the wikipedia philosophy entries as an example of what is bad in wikipedia, so you are not alone in that critique. --Joshua |
I think the answer will depend on the nature of the community
contributing to the open resource. I have found on some email discussion lists a highly erudite community with relatively little in the way of ill-informed and idiotic commentary. On others (which I tend to unsubscribe after a short time), the voice of reason has been drowned out by a cacophony of opinion of those who like the sound of their own voices but don't have anything of substance to say. Wikipedia is probably a large collection of mildly interacting communities - some erudite, and some opinionated. Philosophy, in my experience, tends to attract the latter - even in academic circles - so it is perhaps not surprising that the Wikipedia entry for Philosophy is not of much use. The trick, as always, is to know how to sort the wheat from the chaff. Isn't this always the problem, even with refereed journals? Cheers On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 05:33:48PM -0600, Joshua Thorp wrote: > http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 > > Here is anther story about wikipedia, the open web encyclopeadia that > can be edited by anyone (with an internet connection). The author > argues that wikipedia is doomed because of its anti-elitist stance. I > think this is very interesting. Can a project that is explicitly > egalitarian overcome human nature of hoodlumism and > self-agrandisment... Slashdot does a nice job of dealing with trolls > through community point giving/taking which might be an interesting > enhancement to wikipedia. The author here, though, believes that > there is a pervasive anti-authoritarian, anti-expertise element that > could gang up in such a system to push all the experts out. My > idealist nature doesn't want to believe in such things... > > BTW Nick, the author uses the wikipedia philosophy entries as an > example of what is bad in wikipedia, so you are not alone in that > critique. > > --Joshua > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe > Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.: > http://www.friam.org -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Director High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile) UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (") Australia [hidden email] Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20050114/9b67c7d7/attachment.bin |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |