GIGO

Actually, a downturn in the economy would result in an increase in unemployment which would probably result in more people with time on their hands so more people doing volunteer work. It would also result in big corporations having less money to spend. So, a downturn in the economy is *good* for Wikipedia and the rest of Web 2.0.

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:36 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Honestly, I have a policy of simply not reading people that are this blatantly stupid. I mean, it's not even funny how little he understands the internet, and no one with half a brain listens and believes in what he says. He can bark how much he wants about how wikipedia sucks, it's not gonna make it any truer, and it's not going to make anyone use something else. And seriously, Knol? It's a cesspool, it's useless. Half the articles are promotional, the other halfs are straight copies from wikipedia (copies that don't fulfill all the requirements of the GFDL, btw). Just as a test, I just tried one search on Knol, to compare articles with Wikipedia. I searched "Kentucky". I figured, it has to have an article on Kentucky. It's a US state for cryin' out loud. I was wrong. My search came up nil. He can crow all he wants. He's wrong, we all know he's wrong, and every important person on the web knows he's wrong. Let's just not care. --Oskar

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Judson Dunn <cohesion(a)sleepyhead.org> wrote: "pundit"? --Oskar

2008/10/23 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>om>: I think not. The media are always going to be looking for someone who can be relied on to produce an anti wikipedia statement when they require one. From our POV we could do a lot worse than Andrew Keen. Consider 1)The guy has a fair bit of integrity. He doesn't lie about what wikipedia is so we don't have to spend large amounts of effort fighting off say Conservapedia style distortion. 2)His attacks are fairly broad meaning that they are likely to have little appeal to anyone likely to become a wikipedia editor. It also limits his ability to build up much of a following even within the reflexively anti wikipedia groups. 3)He is smart enough to realise that his arguments mean that he has to maintain a certain degree of standards himself. There is a limit to how much he can go after wikipedia on more gossipy issues. Sure he's no walking strawman Jack Thompson but as a talking head for wikipedia opposition go we could do a lot worse. -- geni