There is a (sort of tongue-in-cheek) commentary of Wikipedia that speaks of it and its articles as something like a "debate sponge", or "conflict attractor". I have the source somewhere in my bibliography (of thousands of entries) but can't find it. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
On 4/24/07, Joseph Reagle reagle@mit.edu wrote:
There is a (sort of tongue-in-cheek) commentary of Wikipedia that speaks of it and its articles as something like a "debate sponge", or "conflict attractor". I have the source somewhere in my bibliography (of thousands of entries) but can't find it. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
A google search turns up no results. ~~~~
On 4/24/07, Joseph Reagle reagle@mit.edu wrote:
There is a (sort of tongue-in-cheek) commentary of Wikipedia that speaks of it and its articles as something like a "debate sponge", or "conflict attractor". I have the source somewhere in my bibliography (of thousands of entries) but can't find it. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
Article in Wired calls it an argument engine. http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/commentary/alttext/2006/04/70670