James Governor writes poetically about Wikipedia's magic, referencing the ongoing Wikipedia debate (don't tell me you had forgotten the continuing "Wikipedia Debate" echoing through the halls of academia) :
Governor: http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/archives/000536.html Shirky: http://tinyurl.com/6l5bx Boyd: http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/03/06/situating_wikipedia.php
(Andrew Lih and Jamesday get in some good comments on the Corante pieces)
--SJ
PS. While on the subject of good articles about Wikipedia, I should also mention Simon Waldman's incisive acclaim for Wikinews (in contrast with bloggers) http://www.editorsweblog.org/2005/02/wikinews_vs_blo.html and the related interview that site did with Jimbo the week previous http://www.editorsweblog.org/2005/02/jimmy_wales_to_.html .
On Thursday 10 March 2005 00:20, Sj wrote:
James Governor writes poetically about Wikipedia's magic, referencing the ongoing Wikipedia debate (don't tell me you had forgotten the continuing "Wikipedia Debate" echoing through the halls of academia) :
Semi-related thread:
http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/culture/wikipedia/usage-and-citation
... [ Even in high school, when confronted with a rule prohibiting the citation of a reference work I felt as if I was being encouraged towards plagiarism, or at least unfairness. If a reference work points me to a more authoritative source, should I at least not acknowledge this bit of help? Particularly, if I'm more likely to be influenced by the summary provided by the reference? Additionally why would any book among the thousands published a year be any more authoritative than a general reference work on the sole basis of its form? I could compile a multipage bibliography of books denying the Holocaust, but find few -- if any -- general-purpose reference works that did the same. The generality of the reference work insulates it from partisan pressures because it must appeal to a wide audience over many topics. ] ...
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org