On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:55 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 August 2010 00:21, John Vandenberg
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.
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.