Silkers,
Andrew Orlowski
( http://www.theregister.com/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ )
makes a valid point that there are many flawed entries;
however, in fairness to Wikipedia, most new projects
have quality problems here and there. The typical article
on Wikipedia is remarkably good, especially when you consider
that it all began in 2001. The sheer number of articles
is huge -- of course there will be some problems.
Judging an encyclopedia by its weakest entries is absurd.
If I want to know about theoretical astrophysics,
who cares how bad the article on Klingon might be?
I don't, you don't, and if Andrew Orlowski were
honest with himself, he'd admit that he wouldn't care either.
His metric for evaluating quality is just plain wrong.
Criticism is good, but pointless community-bashing and
sweeping statements predicated on an inappropriate quality
model is a waste of everybody's time. Perhaps this
is why he wasn't well-received....
-Jon
* Rishab Aiyer Ghosh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051018 05:45]:
> sorry, i meant to annotate, not just linkspam.
>
> my favourite quotes from the article are:
>
> "If you don't like an entry, you can fix it yourself. Which is rather like
> going to a restaurant for a date, being served terrible food, and then
> being told by the waiter where to find the kitchen. But you didn't come out
> to cook a meal - you could have done that at home!"
>
> and:
> "[on the argument that] looking up a Wikipedia is faster than using an
> alternative. This line of argument is even weaker than the first: it's like
> going to a restaurant for a date - and being pelted with rotten food,
> thrown at you at high velocity by the waiter."
>
> -rishab
>
>
> At 14:43 18/10/2005, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote:
> >interesting article criticising wikipedia (and its supporters... like clay
> >shirky, is he still on silklist?)
> >
> >http://www.theregister.com/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/
>
>
