On 4/15/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
And, to continue on my train of thought from the last message, it's a real shame that the main critical sites are like that; I genuinely see a lot of good in the idea of an independent, critical-minded site that keeps watch on Wikipedia, holds it up to criticism where warranted and ridicule when it deserves it, and makes constructive criticism about what its problems are and how they might be solved.
I see alot of good in the idea too. In the hope of finding some constructive criticism that I could use to improve Wikipedia, I registered at Wikipedia Review in late 2005, shortly after it was started.
In the beginning (when there were only a handful of users there) I managed to have some fairly constructive discussions (including with some people who had never edited, but who were looking for a forum where they could discuss weaknesses of the project and opportunities for improvement with other like minded people), but over time the composition of the site changed from being mostly rational critics to being largely comprised of banned users with grudges.
Now the discussion is almost exclusively about individuals on Wikipedia.
There's still a lack of a dedicated place for independent, external, rational critical commentary.