Comments on: The sum of knowledge? http://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/the-sum-of-knowledge/ web 2.0, blogs and social media Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:12:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Three Cheers for Twonks at twopointouch: web 2.0, blogs and social media http://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/the-sum-of-knowledge/comment-page-1/#comment-524 Three Cheers for Twonks at twopointouch: web 2.0, blogs and social media Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:13:27 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/07/30/the-sum-of-knowledge/#comment-524 [...] I don’t think that even the proudest champion of Web 2.0 would claim that either of these sites are without problems. A lot of them are admitted by their owners, and have been covered here in earlier posts. The thing is, they are also quite good as they are, and are continuously evolving to become better. [...] [...] I don’t think that even the proudest champion of Web 2.0 would claim that either of these sites are without problems. A lot of them are admitted by their owners, and have been covered here in earlier posts. The thing is, they are also quite good as they are, and are continuously evolving to become better. [...]

]]> By: Rob http://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/the-sum-of-knowledge/comment-page-1/#comment-156 Rob Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:37:55 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/07/30/the-sum-of-knowledge/#comment-156 The Steven Colbert sketch on Sunday night highlights a real problem. Is 'wikiality' happening? I know there are a lot of stories about experts simply giving up on editing posts because other users edit them incorrectly and can't seem to be stopped. There's no way a professor can say "Hey, I'm an expert on this. You're not. Leave it alone" The Steven Colbert sketch on Sunday night highlights a real problem. Is ‘wikiality’ happening? I know there are a lot of stories about experts simply giving up on editing posts because other users edit them incorrectly and can’t seem to be stopped. There’s no way a professor can say “Hey, I’m an expert on this. You’re not. Leave it alone”

]]> By: Rose http://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/the-sum-of-knowledge/comment-page-1/#comment-130 Rose Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:47:58 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/07/30/the-sum-of-knowledge/#comment-130 Ah yes, Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit- even pedophiles.The following is not only disturbing, it’s disgusting. Lindsay Ashford is a admitted pedophile who runs a missing kids website. Seven months ago KCTV5 News Investigation exposed this pedophile’s girl loving web site and his “missing girls” website, where he preys on the families of missing little girls. On Lindsay missing girls website are photos of girls, all murdered or missing. That’s not all. You might be shocked to hear that Linsay Ashford is also a active editor at Wikipedia, using the online alies Zanthalon. Zanthalon Wikipedia profile reads, “Many of you have commented that the majority of my edits are on pedophilia-related articles. This is an area of interest for me since I am myself a pedophile, a girllover to be specific.” Elsewhere on the internet, Ashford openly calls himself the “Lover of Little Girls” and states that he is not the enemy. According to a wxyztv.com news article, Lindsay’s website is still up and running and police say it’s not breaking any laws. This is just sad and shocking! Ah yes, Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit- even pedophiles.The following is not only disturbing, it’s disgusting.

Lindsay Ashford is a admitted pedophile who runs a missing kids website. Seven months ago KCTV5 News Investigation exposed this pedophile’s girl loving web site and his “missing girls” website, where he preys on the families of missing little girls. On Lindsay missing girls website are photos of girls, all murdered or missing.

That’s not all. You might be shocked to hear that Linsay Ashford is also a active editor at Wikipedia, using the online alies Zanthalon.

Zanthalon Wikipedia profile reads, “Many of you have commented that the majority of my edits are on pedophilia-related articles. This is an area of interest for me since I am myself a pedophile, a girllover to be specific.”

Elsewhere on the internet, Ashford openly calls himself the “Lover of Little Girls” and states that he is not the enemy.

According to a wxyztv.com news article, Lindsay’s website is still up and running and police say it’s not breaking any laws.

This is just sad and shocking!

]]> By: Ian Delaney http://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/the-sum-of-knowledge/comment-page-1/#comment-123 Ian Delaney Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:41:38 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/07/30/the-sum-of-knowledge/#comment-123 Rohan, that's a very pertinent comment and it certainly strikes a chord with my own experience of using Wikipedia. The articles almost moderate themselves through the quality of their expression! It also identifies articles that are contentious, since they will be the ones that have had hundreds of substantial edits, almost certainly leading to some stylistic inconsistency and 'stammering'. I guess the 'difficulty' would be people who can't distinguish good writing from bad. Maybe, they'd be a lot safer paying the EB for a subscription. Rohan, that’s a very pertinent comment and it certainly strikes a chord with my own experience of using Wikipedia. The articles almost moderate themselves through the quality of their expression! It also identifies articles that are contentious, since they will be the ones that have had hundreds of substantial edits, almost certainly leading to some stylistic inconsistency and ’stammering’.

I guess the ‘difficulty’ would be people who can’t distinguish good writing from bad. Maybe, they’d be a lot safer paying the EB for a subscription.

]]> By: Rohan Jayasekera http://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/the-sum-of-knowledge/comment-page-1/#comment-122 Rohan Jayasekera Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:26:08 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/07/30/the-sum-of-knowledge/#comment-122 Ian, this is the most comprehensive article I've yet seen about Wikipedia. (I imagine you wrote it for your book, which I'm looking forward to.) I believe that the concerns about Wikipedia's accuracy are excessive, for a reason I don't think I've seen mentioned anywhere (not that I've searched). I trust well-written articles and distrust poorly written ones, and I believe this to be a very common habit. It's a good strategy because writers who are careful about things like clear phrasing tend to be the same people who are careful about accuracy. And it's a very easy strategy to use, because it's obvious how well written a particular article is (or portion of an article): I don't have to think. So as I read an entry I'm automatically rating it for accuracy -- despite having no direct evidence. Consequently the many bad articles in Wikipedia don't mislead me. Note this implication: that many Wikipedia articles are badly written is a *good* thing. If the people who couldn't get their facts correct were able to write well, I might end up believing a lot of nonsense. People *do* tend to believe what they read -- but fortunately many or most of us have a built-in alarm bell for bad writing, which serves as an excellent indicator of poor accuracy. Ian, this is the most comprehensive article I’ve yet seen about Wikipedia. (I imagine you wrote it for your book, which I’m looking forward to.)

I believe that the concerns about Wikipedia’s accuracy are excessive, for a reason I don’t think I’ve seen mentioned anywhere (not that I’ve searched). I trust well-written articles and distrust poorly written ones, and I believe this to be a very common habit. It’s a good strategy because writers who are careful about things like clear phrasing tend to be the same people who are careful about accuracy. And it’s a very easy strategy to use, because it’s obvious how well written a particular article is (or portion of an article): I don’t have to think. So as I read an entry I’m automatically rating it for accuracy — despite having no direct evidence. Consequently the many bad articles in Wikipedia don’t mislead me.

Note this implication: that many Wikipedia articles are badly written is a *good* thing. If the people who couldn’t get their facts correct were able to write well, I might end up believing a lot of nonsense. People *do* tend to believe what they read — but fortunately many or most of us have a built-in alarm bell for bad writing, which serves as an excellent indicator of poor accuracy.

]]>