Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain(theregister.co.uk)
theregister.co.uk
Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
2 comments
Yes,the Register is shrill to the point of borderline tabloid status. But they do put out a significant amount of original work.
Just to see for myself, I went to the Wiki page for Gary Weiss' bio and saw numerous attempts had been made to add a link to this Register article and all had been undone immediately.
Hopefully, Citizendium (like Wikipedia, but no anonymous editors and there is an editorial board) will be able to gain some traction:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page
Just to see for myself, I went to the Wiki page for Gary Weiss' bio and saw numerous attempts had been made to add a link to this Register article and all had been undone immediately.
Hopefully, Citizendium (like Wikipedia, but no anonymous editors and there is an editorial board) will be able to gain some traction:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page
it still faces the same problem.. a small group of members can block information if they wish.
Wisdom of the Crowds at its finest.
If recent news reports are accurate, it appears that Wikipedia may be devolving into a Web 2.0 version of "Lord of the Flies"
Well said. Wikipedia has become a giant mess full of hidden agendas and now that we've had a peek behind the curtain, I'm worried about the quality of information that's there. Powerful interests have managed to infiltrate Wikipedia and are changing the reality.
This is a weakness of user-generated-contents. We have seen this on Reddit and Digg and now Wikipedia.
That's true but at least Digg and Reddit have been working on busting up these "mobs" while Wikipedia has been supporting them.
This is more like dmoz, once great but too few developed too much power and never let go. Now unless if you know the right people it is impossible to get listed on dmoz.
That said, the article seems a little overzealous, a little like the accused poster's editing. Still, it's good to sully wikipedia's reputation a little because some people put far, far too much faith in wikipedia's "facts".