Wikipedia has worn out its welcome

By JAMES DERK
Scripps Howard News Service
2007-10-30 00:00:00

One of the most interesting things to arise out of the Internet age is
Wikipedia, a self-edited reference manual for the masses that allows
anyone, anywhere, to add content, enrich the effort and generally leave
the Web better than they found it.

Well, if only that were true.

I was one of the original fans of Wikipedia, writing enthusiastically
about it and even submitting some material and photographs. Today I
won't go near it. What's changed?

The lure of the site, that anyone, anywhere can contribute to the
discourse, is long gone. Wikipedia is now managed by a group of
fanatical editors that nit-pick everything from a person's "worthiness"
to be listed to arcane, subtle additions. There are numerous discussion
boards on the site where the 1,000 unpaid editors debate endlessly
instead of making substantial improvements to the site.

On Oct 31, 3:04 pm, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:

Yea...but wouldn't any encyclopedic resource be overseen by editors who come
to the table with their own biases and political leans? Anything published
with the name HARVARD on it these days comes highly suspect as product of
extreme secular liberalism. BERKLEY even worse. OXFORD not far behind.
I doubt if there is a resource left without political taint to it now.

On 31 Oct, 23:04, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:

It also pushes Wikipedia to the top....But I guess that is based more
on hits than anything.

On Oct 31, 8:48 pm, knucmo hotmail.com> wrote:

i'm sure we can all chop out some fruitful wiki to support our own
pedia's.

if you're unhappy with the harvesting then lets imagine we can do our
own gardening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laziness

It is always sad when lawyers get involved. We need to move the Internet to
a non litigious country.

The progression of software idiot proofing has made the leap from spell
check to grammar check. Now we need to advance to instant electronic fact
check...

"Sir Frederick" fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:lsuhi3pdstahsnkqc4uat61a6t9t1ir9nh@4ax.com...

On Nov 1, 8:17 am, "Awlnoing" hotmail.com> wrote:

Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:

His critique is self-contradictory. On the one hand he complains because
it is no longer the case that "anyone, anywhere can contribute to the
discourse" while on the other hand he complains that schools ban the use
of wikipedia because "the information can be supplied by anyone." So I
have to ask, (a) can anyone contribute? and (b) is the answer to (a) a
good thing or a bad thing? The author can't seem to decide.

On Nov 2, 5:12 am, "Daniel T." earthlink.net> wrote:

You're right on that one Daniel and it supports my own longstanding
disdain of the wiki trash, as being somewhere where contradicting
crackpots, like that twit, can and do contribute and then even more
bizarre, there are the idiots on here who regard wiki as being a
reference for anything but the mindless nonsenses of idiotic trashy
writers.

MG

On Nov 1, 5:43 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote: