On Dec 19, 2007 6:50 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name:
Nobody's mentioned it here yet, but there's been yet another Cade Metz article on Wikipedia in The Register:
Truth, anonymity and the Wikipedia Way http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/18/the_wikipedia_paradox/
This one is closer to being accurate and it does correctly point out the very serious tension between enforcing COI issues and allowing anonymity. Who knows, if Metz keeps this up it might actually turn into real reporting.
I wanted to second this; I read the article roughly when it came out, and didn't have time to comment here but I think this latest one is much more balanced and fairly discussing some of the dynamic tension Wikipedia has made part of our operating philosophy.
We do know the open / responsibility / anonymity tensions. Not everyone internally is happy with the balance we found, much less critics or normal people outside the project, but that those tensions exist between our goals and policies is accurate, fair, etc. Media covering them on an ongoing basis is fair, as they're an ongoing source of trouble for Wikipedia, because they are hard questions.