Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Rain Day Woman, vol. 7

In my column this week, I invite you to let your fingers do the walking through Wikipedia. It's a snap!

If you have something to say about it, please email the Free Times. Frank Lewis is the editor.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Not notable" is wiki's catch all. The few errors you pointed out about John are just the tip of the iceberg, wikipedia is full of flaws. Matter of fact, I'm taking the link off my blog.

Dean said...

Smarter people than me compared Wikipedia to other encyclopedias on verifiable material, and found that Wikipedia is/was no better and no worse.

Which means that errors at the level you point out occur everywhere.

Except on this blog and my blog! Of course.

sleepydog said...

Erin - You are the main reason that I do not sink into a slothful state of illiteracy.

Thank you.
Thank you.
Oh thank you thank you.

If I ever have the pleasure of meeting you I will hug you.

Anonymous said...

I was thinking to myself..."Hey, Erin has a Wiki article I've looked her up on it before. I found the article informative." Then, I read your article. I'm disappointed.

Norm said...

There are organized cadres of ... um ... ogres, I've read, who are trying to tune Wikipedia for their own amusement. Obviously they're being successful.

PDD said...

Bunch of mother effers!

Anonymous said...

It's a bit old, but still relative.

'Traditionally, Wikipedia supporters have responded to criticism in one of several ways. The commonest is: If you don't like an entry, you can fix it yourself. Which is rather like going to a restaurant for a date, being served terrible food, and then being told by the waiter where to find the kitchen. But you didn't come out to cook a meal - you could have done that at home! No matter, roll up your sleeves.

As a second line of defense, Wikipedians point to flaws in the existing dead tree encyclopedias, as if the handful of errors in Britannica cancels out the many errors, hopeless apologies for entries, and tortured prose, of Wikipedia itself.

Thirdly, and here you can see that the defense is beginning to run out of steam, one's attention is drawn to process issues: such as the speed with which errors are fixed, or the fact that looking up a Wikipedia is faster than using an alternative. This line of argument is even weaker than the first: it's like going to a restaurant for a date - and being pelted with rotten food, thrown at you at high velocity by the waiters.'

Libby Spencer said...

Wikipedians are lame and shitty.