Comments on: Five Wikipedia Predictions (A Valentine) http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/943 Jason Scott's Weblog Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:22:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Gongadze http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/943/comment-page-1#comment-67653 Gongadze Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:10:19 +0000 http://ascii.textfiles.com/?p=943#comment-67653 Well, it's 2007, and none of those predictions were right... Well, it’s 2007, and none of those predictions were right…

]]> By: Heel http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/943/comment-page-1#comment-3404 Heel Thu, 11 May 2006 05:44:01 +0000 http://ascii.textfiles.com/?p=943#comment-3404 A fantastic site, and brilliant effort. A great piece of work. A fantastic site, and brilliant effort. A great piece of work.

]]> By: Jason Scott http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/943/comment-page-1#comment-3403 Jason Scott Wed, 10 May 2006 21:41:22 +0000 http://ascii.textfiles.com/?p=943#comment-3403 Well, considering this is just a list of predictions, nothing beyond what you might see before a good sports game, that's not really overboard criticism. But I assume you mean the series of articles I've written on this subject. The "it's just Wikipedia" argument doesn't hold water because the wikipedia articles, unlike your forum or my website or many others, are in many case the defacto answer on thousands of proper nouns, non-proper nouns, and general phrases. If you go to google and want to know who Bob Denver, John Denver, or Anton Lavey are, Wikipedia is either the first or one of the first hits. And it calls itself Wikipedia, which a lot of people misinterpret as it having encyclopedic discipline, which it doesn't. Couple this with the amount of sites now using Wikipedia as a primary source, and the arbitrariness of it, and that's where my criticisms come in. The speech I gave at Notacon lays out my concerns better than most of these essays. Well, considering this is just a list of predictions, nothing beyond what you might see before a good sports game, that’s not really overboard criticism. But I assume you mean the series of articles I’ve written on this subject.

The “it’s just Wikipedia” argument doesn’t hold water because the wikipedia articles, unlike your forum or my website or many others, are in many case the defacto answer on thousands of proper nouns, non-proper nouns, and general phrases. If you go to google and want to know who Bob Denver, John Denver, or Anton Lavey are, Wikipedia is either the first or one of the first hits. And it calls itself Wikipedia, which a lot of people misinterpret as it having encyclopedic discipline, which it doesn’t. Couple this with the amount of sites now using Wikipedia as a primary source, and the arbitrariness of it, and that’s where my criticisms come in.

The speech I gave at Notacon lays out my concerns better than most of these essays.

]]> By: Bobak http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/943/comment-page-1#comment-3402 Bobak Wed, 10 May 2006 20:10:59 +0000 http://ascii.textfiles.com/?p=943#comment-3402 Maybe this criticism is a little overboard? Who cares if people are wasting their energy (or the system isn't a well-oiled machine) as long as the content gets the info across eventually (which, when you're talking about a free mass-particpated experiment is as best you can ask for). While I agree with the problem you've identified here and in previous articles, I don't agree that it's going to reach some crecendo that will tear the very fabric of the universe or what you seem to be implying. If it's just wasted energy that concerns you, then don't waste your own (it's a fair concern, and one that I'm sure many also consider, myself included). Sorry for the rambling comment, but I did find your articles interesting (but ultimately alarmist). I noticed your own articles on this "failure" started in 2004. I joined Wikipedia in July 2005 and so far have found it to be enjoyable, albeit frustrating at times --but no more frustrating than the iron-fisted control that I bear on my own internet video game forum where I need to worry about the hundreds of people online at any given time. I think for ever minor quibble you get on a hot topic there's about 100-200 articles with no problems, many of which are actually pretty solid mini-articles for reference. I look forward to seeing how your criticism develops. Maybe this criticism is a little overboard? Who cares if people are wasting their energy (or the system isn’t a well-oiled machine) as long as the content gets the info across eventually (which, when you’re talking about a free mass-particpated experiment is as best you can ask for). While I agree with the problem you’ve identified here and in previous articles, I don’t agree that it’s going to reach some crecendo that will tear the very fabric of the universe or what you seem to be implying. If it’s just wasted energy that concerns you, then don’t waste your own (it’s a fair concern, and one that I’m sure many also consider, myself included). Sorry for the rambling comment, but I did find your articles interesting (but ultimately alarmist). I noticed your own articles on this “failure” started in 2004. I joined Wikipedia in July 2005 and so far have found it to be enjoyable, albeit frustrating at times –but no more frustrating than the iron-fisted control that I bear on my own internet video game forum where I need to worry about the hundreds of people online at any given time. I think for ever minor quibble you get on a hot topic there’s about 100-200 articles with no problems, many of which are actually pretty solid mini-articles for reference. I look forward to seeing how your criticism develops.

]]> By: Gamahucheur http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/943/comment-page-1#comment-3401 Gamahucheur Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:28:39 +0000 http://ascii.textfiles.com/?p=943#comment-3401 D_mn. Stranger be dissin' my name. D_mn. Stranger be dissin’ my name.

]]>