On Dec 19, 2007 6:50 PM, <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
Quoting "Daniel R. Tobias"
<dan(a)tobias.name>me>:
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.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com