More Wikipedia accusations

[Tale]

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 December 7, 2007 by Tale

[Tale]

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

[taks]

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 December 7, 2007 by taks

[Gorgon]

Given that Wikipedia has a very poor protection against special interests it manages reasonably well I think.