Jump to content

More Wikipedia accusations


Tale

Recommended Posts

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/12/07/1434221.shtml

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wi..._and_overstock/

 

I'm reading through the article and it's an interesting premise. I haven't gotten to the meat past the accusation, but hope it's juicy! I've touted the usefulness of Wikipedia.org, but I'd always hoped that they would be a bit impartial. If true, then I may need to find another place to cyberslack.

 

Edit: Interesting that the fellows this relates to are put forth as conspiracy nuts. Usually if I wanted to look into the issue deeper and try to educate myself to make a decision on the validity of their claims, I'd check Wikipedia.org first.

Edited by Tale
"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading it, Wikipedia.org's responses sounded very plausable. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, I wish I had somewhere to read up more on it. hah

"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

wikipedia is fine when the content is objective rather than subjective. this includes situations with objective content with subjective interpretation. for example, if you want to find information on the law of sines, wiki is a good place to go. at the very least, they'll provide appropriate references to the source material. there's no interpretation to be made. there are occasionally errors, but anyone is allowed to correct them and, hopefully, the "moderator" for a particular topic (generally he's moderator over a range of topics) has enough knowledge to judge the efficacy of the edit. this example, however, certainly has a seemingly auditable paper trail, but the motive/intent of what is going on is subjective in nature. hence, no one interpretation of the events is absolutely "correct," though some may be more "correct" than others.

 

i had not heard about the overstock issue, btw, till now. interesting.

 

taks

Edited by taks

comrade taks... just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...