On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:55 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 August 2010 00:21, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
.. Pseudo-science, pseudo-humanities, etc are no stranger to Wikipedia, and our processes have not always been victorious over it. Simply put, the rubbish on Wikipedia outweights the rubbish on CZ, and I suspect that an academically sound study would indicate that, proportionally speaking, Wikipedia pollutes the interweb more than CZ.
Wikipedia has the help of LOTS of people to get closer to NPOV. CZ artificially limited its contributor pool in important ways.
Wikipedia has artificially increased its 'editor' base, structuring it so that Randy Boise is on equal footing with the experts, and resulting in lots of help in violating publishing ethics.
Compare the rationalwiki page for CZ and WP. I wonder how large their WP page would be if a similar level of critical analysis was applied.
The WP article is about dealing with an imperfect successful thing, not analysing a failure. Your point is unclear.
You, and the RW article about WP, start from the assertion that Wikipedia is successful. Successful at what? Success at Google rankings/pageviews/popular culture? Is that the only appropriate measure of an encyclopedia; an encyclopedia which is putting other encyclopedia's out of business? What is it unsuccessful at? The RW article about WP does little to demonstrate a rational persons observation of WP. It reads like the writer(s) are drunk on coolaid.
-- John Vandenberg