On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 20:36:07 -0400
"The Cunctator" <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Jimmy Wales may argue that the NYT got the situation
exactly
backwards, but the reality is that this is a semantic game and in this
case the contrarian position the NYT is arguing is, if not ultimately
correct, an important one to have. Wikipedia benefits by having
outsiders challenging Wikipedia to be and remain open and free.
Institutions by their nature are conservative and self-protecting, and
their commitment to their claimed ideals must face constant challenge
for them to remain true to said ideals.
I would say that neither Wales for the NYT is really right-- I would
argue that Wikipedia, as it grows in size and prominence, is evolving
rapidly and in ways that no one person could possibly understand
fully. That Wikipedia will always be straddling the uncomfortable
divide between reliability and editability, just as it embodies
conflicts between universality and topicality, brevity and
completeness, accessibility and accuracy, etc. It is neither the
golden perfect lovely machine that Wales seems so insistent on
portraying nor the decadent failure its critics decry.*
I would be happier if we lived in a world where the New York Times was
writing articles promoting the promise of Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales
was its biggest critic, finding fault where others see none, but I
don't get to choose the world I live in.
That said, I found it quite interesting how Larry Sanger is now lost
from the official narrative of the creation of Wikipedia. History
belongs to the victors, I suppose. Although I became one of his most
active critics during his tenure, he does not deserve to become a
footnote, or worse, forgotten.
--tc
{{signed}} ~~~~