Gordon Joly wrote: No thanks. I take him to be a careerist generating "amusing" paradoxes about the Internet to gain attention. His point on Start the Week about WP was roughly that WP can disregard the statute of limitations; which is a general feature of the Web or any network that crosses jurisdictions. Charles

David Gerard wrote: As grating as Andrew Keen but with added tendentious logic? Andrew Lih for people who still really don't get it? By the way, I know nothing about the Andrew Dalby book mentioned on the programme, but he talked quite reasonably (Wales isn't a philosopher while Sanger is, but you could argue that one), with the negative restricted to saying enWP is not going to get much better. Charles

2009/12/15 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>: Wikipedia is probably not able to drive change (not least because we've probably hit the limits of the software) but it is able to be involved with it. For example the popularity of wikipedia applications related to augmented reality shows that it able to be involved with change. On the other hand we have no way to drive use of 2D barcodes pointing at wikipedia articles and thus we can't really be involved with augmented reality below the level that GPS reaches. -- geni

David Gerard wrote: It's all arguable, which is why what Andrew Dalby was saying wasn't a stupid opinion (unlike some I could mention). We could turn all the redlinks blue on 1000 lists, or add 10000 new images to articles, or upgrade 50000 two-line stubs to four paras, and (arguably) the people looking up [[Cheryl Cole]] would see no real difference. I think he's wrong, because the switching on of flagged doodads should mean that the vandal edit mentioned on the programme (an IP number had changed the death date at [[Christopher R. W. Nevinson]] early in November) would have been caught. He's also wrong because there's just one team updating the site, not one team for popular culture and another one for "unpopular culture"; useful in your general sense is created by synergy and that we do have. Charles

Gordon Joly wrote: Dah, considering the number of obvious mistakes even in good coverage of WP, that is more of a misinterpretation. [[Editor in chief]] seems to believe there is a definition, but I had the impression it was a title that could mean anything or nothing (quite apt for Jimbo, therefore). More to the point really was that this was a classic Middle England presentation taking for granted that WP issues weren't just a reason for people to turn off the radio, then ring up and complain. We've come a long way ... Charles