[WikiEN-l] Metapedia - worse than Conservapedia
cimonavaro at gmail.com
Wed Jul 25 22:34:26 UTC 2007
On 7/26/07, Steven Walling <steven.walling at gmail.com> wrote:
> The same goes for Metapedia. It's a lobby for a particular viewpoint on
> subjects, not a fair and comprehensive encyclopedic endeavor.
To comment specifically on these two points, these are not legitimate
complaints at all. On these points the adage applies: "The more, the
The fact that all the subject-specific projects that have sprung up on
wikia.com (some of them based on formerly wikipedia-content some
of them not) are not and will never be balanced in terms of what you
or I or the fictional wikipedian horde would feel appropriate, is neither
here nor there. It is valid content in the wiki sense of being useful enough
for someone bothering to write about it. The fact that wikipedia/media
has a pike up its ass these days about wanting to be respectable and
all that jazz, doesn't change the original wikiway at all.
Ward Cunningham said it well, I forget the original quotation, but it
went something on the lines that wikipedia would not be a wiki, nor
an encyclopaedia... Maybe I have it wrong, but that is definitely how
I feel about wikipedia these days. We lost the wikiway, but we are never
going to swallow the encyclopaedia kool-aid.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
More information about the WikiEN-l