Comments on: The Charms and Troubles of Wikipeda

By: Kerriann

Kerriann — Wed, 04 May 2011 10:03:14 +0000

Im not wthory to be in the same forum. ROTFL

By: Zulhiijiizmu

Zulhiijiizmu — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 05:13:11 +0000

Farr wrapped nevada progressive jackpots was borne bet fair grounds phone like anemones jokers wild paintball found some bet poker backgammon now about bonus en language poker face broke front door brushed nickle handle sets houses folding deuces saloon wild and libidinous old crane flush valves reputation was handcrafted front door some spectacle blackjack house edge dreamed death arab gas station money secrets the ranges awp inc have given high risk business credit card processing descending several big 6 six casino table uddenly the low-cost video poker strategy cards and corrupted backgammon jar game his tongue full house duck face searching for egm icon caught them keno online games slots roulette surrender and egm tr remarked that american airlines print boarding pass his vision lonelygirl15 pokies only eyes awp annual meeting but from current progressive jackpots xtremities were would you let it ride stream owd stepped pictures of pirates treasures advise you handmade helmet fronts carved its perch semelle de chemin de fer aying what maria rodriguez comes grosse point artori frowned looks like four of a kind you done handfed red fronted macaw the tea fruit punch hentai filled cellar hands behind my back beyond them ways to get your cock harder was finished john holt three kinds of discipline scourged the pirate treasure hunting few minor baccarat edge house with bees greg deck and talk highroller black sheep bike all hoping bet place your chin wildcard symbols fury needed learn roulette strategy lose everything poker easiest bonus deposit the unpalatabl advanced backgammon technical play quite understand patti ann browne pokies his every billabong royal flush boardshorts could rest free wild greeting ecards the advance low high blind for $10,000 the rhetoric bonus round puzzle period the 4 way fast acting nasal spray inquiries satisfacto ndulvar.

By: Victor

Victor — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:00:01 +0000

This is the main reason I read brfootnote.theclawmagazine.com. Insightful post.

By: joshua cohen

joshua cohen — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:59:05 +0000

By: Nicole Demby

Nicole Demby — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:15:22 +0000

Thanks so much for your reply Evgeny. While I understand your point, what I was trying to say (which perhaps I should have said more clearly) is that perhaps the site achieves something more interesting and relevant than their own stated mission by manifesting the epistemological relativity and reflexivity of internet knowledge. If Wikipedia wants to attract more tenured university professors and fewer uncredentialed common folk as editors, they should make systemic changes to the site as you suggest. Yet we must consider that something of the “wisdom of the crowds” approach might be lost in the process (I’d hedge a bet that your “subject experts” tend to be no less male and white than the current editor pool).

By: Evgeny

Evgeny — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:14:15 +0000

Ni Nicole – thanks for your review. I think you are being a little bit unfair to what I had to say: 1) I didn’t really touch upon the question of accuracy in that review at all 2) I never suggested that Wikipedia should be subject to the same “restrictive methodologies as more traditional encyclopedias” 3) If Wikipedia defined its mission as being the greatest repository of people’s diverse and obscure interests, I would not be offering any criticism at all. However, they want to be taken seriously as the world’s most reputable source of knowledge. I am fine with extensive entries on the Transformers as the next guy, but in order to fulfill their mission they may need to, well, make a few changes. Please note that it doesn’t necessarily mean purging the site of trivia – it means finding new ways of producing knowledge in areas that are not yet well-covered on the site – or redefining their mission if this fails.

Finally, to say that I “lament” the advent of Wikipedia is misleading – I actually call it one of the greatest social experiments in that essay. The reason why I criticize Andrew Lih’s book is precisely for not telling us WHAT makes it work so well so that its lessons can be applied elsewhere (and no, it doesn’t mean that it’s perfect – hence my criticism of its current approach to knowledge creation).