On Aug 26, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote: >> Wikipedia Unmasked > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Best_of_BJAODN > Some of the best Wikipedia edits in history have been hoax/joke edits > like this one: > > "Bexley Hall has a unique set of governing laws. <snip>
Wow: what a fine bit of writing. Onion-like in its blending of sarcasm and twisted history. > I don't know that Wikipedia can remain independent, objective, and > transparent over the long haul. But I sure would like to see them > succeed. I don't think Wikipedia is -- or perhaps should or can be -- objective. I (perhaps mistakenly?) see objectivity as representing a kind of single, omniscient, disinterested point of view. The genius of Wikipedia is that it replaces that conceit with the interplay of thousands of distinct subjective points of view. Noted Internet scholar Nick Arnett says that the Interwebs are about self-organizing complexity, which to me implies many points of view in competition and cooperation. Each Wikipedia editor operates at some point on a continuum from pure self-interest (creating a glowing Wikipedia page about oneself, frex) to objective (editing an article about which one has knowledge, but no interest), but it is the web of editor interests that gives Wikipedia its vitality. If I go ahead and create a page for Dave Land, as though I was of sufficient global interest to warrant such a thing, I'm pretty sure it would be marked for deletion pretty soon. My attempt at vanity would be massively peer-reviewed out of existence. Which seems about right. I won't be testing this theory, and don't recommend that anyone here do so, either :-). You also mentioned transparency, about which there are probably Brin-ellers far more qualified to write (I haven't even read the book by Himself), but I've wondered if the system could visually differentiate anonymous edits from those by editors who have (to some reasonable degree of certainty) identified themselves and their affiliations to allow readers to gauge the value of their contributions. Some sort of LinkedIn/Wikipedia mash-up is in order. The ability to turn this kaleidoscope of validity on and off would be valuable. > The numerous opportunities for humorous discourse at the > expense of the site certainly stand out as just one impediment. Expense? Impediment? Wikipedia needs to embrace it. Mark content as "intentionally fictitious for humorous purposes", but leave it that way. Then again, that's why there is http://uncyclopedia.org/. I know that I have made edits that were intended to entertain, not necessarily to enlighten. I am not certain, but I have a vague recollection of adding an annotation to the entry for the song "Wind Beneath My Wings" mentioning that, as well as appearing on numerous lists of "best songs of all time", it makes regular appearances on lists of the "worse songs of all time" as well. I don't think an entry like that would appear in your Library's Encyclopedia Britannica, even _if_ it had an entry for "Wind Beneath My Wings." Dave _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
