« Baking in the Censorship | Main | Positiong Statements Can be Private »

Jan 13, 2006

Comments

orcmid

Well, I think you over-puffed Wikipedia. It would be insane for it to be viewed as a primary source, so maybe I misunderstand what you mean by primary. A place to look first or early, sure. A place to take as authoritative, not until fact-checking it. (If you're lucky, there may be some sort of link to sources.)

And neutrality is questionable too. There's a series about this from Mitch Ratcliffe that provides an indication of the difficulties: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/?p=26&part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdblog

I recommend Danah Boyd's appraisal: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2005/12/14/wikipedia_acade.html

This does not speek to the question of censorship and even less to free speech, but I have seen my own examples of where the bad drove out the good on Wikipedia.

steven.streight@gmail.com

This is sad, the forces that are opposed to progress, democracy, and information sharing.

Excuse this Off Topic aside: I just bought Naked Conversations at Barnes & Noble today. The clerk had to go to the back to get a copy, it had just arrived.

I love it. I encourage anyone reading this comment to rush out and buy this, what I unbashfully call the Blogger's Bible.

It covers so much that the business bloggers especially, ironically, have not yet grasped, vital issues that spell the difference between pseudo blog and new super blog.

Good job Shel.

Very impressive. Love the art, the color, design, writing style.

I am stopping every other activity, and read it. Now.
Bye.

The comments to this entry are closed.