I was listening to the radio this fine morning when Kim Komando's Computer Minute came on ([[Kim Komando]]). She's had your common untrusting-media-type take on Wikipedia, but I think we've come to expect that. Anyway, she dropped an absolute bomb today about a very "personal" matter. It seemed that she had been alerted to on-and-off vandalism to her own article, Kim Komando, and that it was a lot of work to get it fixed, and she was now warning that *you* or *your organization* could be hit by hideous libel on Wikipedia next, etc, etc. What really struck me, however, was her idea of Wikipedia's "inherent flaw", which was letting anybody edit any page.
Isn't that the entire point of the project?
Or how about this: isn't that an inherent flaw of the entire Internet? Anybody can buy a domain and say any horrible thing about anybody. I think she (and the media by and large) is missing the big picture.
--Ryan [[en:User:Merovingian]]
Or how about this: isn't that an inherent flaw of the entire Internet? Anybody can buy a domain and say any horrible thing about anybody. I think she (and the media by and large) is missing the big picture.
I don't think they are missing anything, they just have different values. Wikipedia works on the principle that a small amount of incorrect information is an acceptable price to pay for a large amount of correct information. When the incorrect information is negative stuff about a particular person, that person tends to disagree - it's understandable, really.
On 5/7/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think they are missing anything, they just have different values. Wikipedia works on the principle that a small amount of incorrect information is an acceptable price to pay for a large amount of correct information. When the incorrect information is negative stuff about a particular person, that person tends to disagree - it's understandable, really.
Yes, that's another good point. We're putting together something really great, but not all of the chaff gets separated. And it is understandable because it's mostly not the way that any other informative work has been compiled.
Indeed. $8 bucks (abouts there) gets you a domian, within minutes you can find a free hosting service (some ISP's offer web hosting), or you invest in a cheap hosting account... and what do you have: a license to do whatever the fuck you want. Of course, there are some American laws proventing Libel and stuff, but I do recall I read somewhere that a law to restrict porn on line was passed, and then part was repealed, leaving up the only part of that act that kept website owners from being accountable for anything on their website, even if it is libel or slander? (I may very well be wrong about this...).
Even if it is against the law, most websites out there won't get enough traffic to get on anyones radar, and if they do they've been up long enough to be cached elsewhere.
At any rate, I never listen to Kim Komando... or talk radio for that matter. I think we all need to consider the source.
-Cascadia
"Ryan Wetherell" renardius@gmail.com wrote in message news:76e981200705071008p25221cb1n2b6d699df9c18872@mail.gmail.com...
I was listening to the radio this fine morning when Kim Komando's Computer Minute came on ([[Kim Komando]]). She's had your common untrusting-media-type take on Wikipedia, but I think we've come to expect that. Anyway, she dropped an absolute bomb today about a very "personal" matter. It seemed that she had been alerted to on-and-off vandalism to her own article, Kim Komando, and that it was a lot of work to get it fixed, and she was now warning that *you* or *your organization* could be hit by hideous libel on Wikipedia next, etc, etc. What really struck me, however, was her idea of Wikipedia's "inherent flaw", which was letting anybody edit any page.
Isn't that the entire point of the project?
Or how about this: isn't that an inherent flaw of the entire Internet? Anybody can buy a domain and say any horrible thing about anybody. I think she (and the media by and large) is missing the big picture.
--Ryan [[en:User:Merovingian]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 7 May 2007 09:08:55 -0800, "Ryan Wetherell" renardius@gmail.com wrote:
I was listening to the radio this fine morning when Kim Komando's Computer Minute came on ([[Kim Komando]]). She's had your common untrusting-media-type take on Wikipedia, but I think we've come to expect that. Anyway, she dropped an absolute bomb today about a very "personal" matter. It seemed that she had been alerted to on-and-off vandalism to her own article, Kim Komando, and that it was a lot of work to get it fixed, and she was now warning that *you* or *your organization* could be hit by hideous libel on Wikipedia next, etc, etc.
Oh come on, I didn't make her jump through *that* many hoops. OTRS ticket was 2007042610017851 and she had her editorial director send the mail. I don't see much effort other than one message.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kim_Komando&diff=126246118&...
But she didn't get it removed, which is what she wanted.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 8 May 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Oh come on, I didn't make her jump through *that* many hoops. OTRS ticket was 2007042610017851 and she had her editorial director send the mail. I don't see much effort other than one message.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kim_Komando&diff=126246118&...
But she didn't get it removed, which is what she wanted.
Having to jump through *any* hoops to remove vandalism in an article about you is too much.