tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19194800.post4695420817868522869..comments2008-02-28T10:20:09.113-05:00Debra Mastalerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06031174326858288903noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19194800.post-111251597287944542008-02-27T15:05:00.000-05:002008-02-27T15:05:00.000-05:00Hey Debra,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for this post.. it sounds about right, at least as far as my Wiki experiences go...<BR/><BR/>just curious, do they consider your input to be 'self-serving?'... that would be pretty laughable- if it's a user-edited site, undertaken by volunteers, then every edit would be self serving. <BR/><BR/>At any rate, cheers!Travhttp://trav.270labs.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19194800.post-59568155653102937372008-02-22T08:38:00.000-05:002008-02-22T08:38:00.000-05:00Debra, excellent post. Frustrations with Wikipedia are legion. Just wanted to let you know I've linked to and quoted this post of yours in my post today on <A HREF="http://webmarketcentral.blogspot.com/2008/01/social-networking-sites-what-wikipedia.html" REL="nofollow">Social Networking Sites and SEO: What Wikipedia Won't Tell You</A>.<BR/><BR/>Keep it up!Tom Pickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04619907810304128318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19194800.post-9556230490963246032008-02-22T08:09:00.000-05:002008-02-22T08:09:00.000-05:00Indeed. If you don't like Wikipedia, don't follow links to it. It's like commercial TV. There IS an off switch. But unlike commercial TV, if you are motivated then you can do something about a bad Wikipedia entry. Is it worth the time? Who knows... but it's gotta be better than complaining!Mediadudehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04666633325303956374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19194800.post-55149791626673684062008-02-20T18:34:00.000-05:002008-02-20T18:34:00.000-05:00Folks, why are you complaining about a dud Wikipedia article? It's an all-volunteer effort, and all you have to do is log in to fix the content. So, do that.David Taberwww.taberconsulting.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19194800.post-52127896412333940602008-02-20T14:30:00.000-05:002008-02-20T14:30:00.000-05:00rebecca - If you're referencing the calling out I received on Sphinn and Search Engine Land (about Wikipedia) know that wasn't the first time. I'm all for being loyal to a cause but I could reverse your suggestion to the person calling me out. If he's SUCH a champion of the Wikipedia, why not dialogue instead of criticze. Two wrongs don't make a right but it seems Wikipedia people are always defensive and always willing to put others down at the drop of a hat. It happened to me twice - this is my biteback. <BR/><BR/>Jim - the article is junk, pure and simple but I never said the rest of the Wikipedia was. That would be silly. Thank you for the link to Wired, I'll read it.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous My readers aren't librarians, they're business people with limited time who expect good information from a source that claims to be an authority. I know it's a huge place but - a concept/page as important as link popularity deserves attention and proper information on it. It's been sitting there for months... who's watching the store? <BR/><BR/>Ok - for the record.... Wikipedia is not bad. The page I found is bad. Fix it. I'm not going to, I've been bounced out of there before for trying to add quality information to a section I also happen to work in. That's a smart way to get experienced people to add credible info? I'm not a spammer but was treated as such, if it happened to you, you'd feel the same way.Debra Mastalerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06031174326858288903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19194800.post-33677208498740749222008-02-20T13:53:00.000-05:002008-02-20T13:53:00.000-05:00Uh, why will it be a cold day in hell when you fix it yourself? I don't understand your indignant outrage. You should be helping, not hurting. <BR/><BR/>Further, your article does not provide its readers with a list of reliable sources to consult instead of Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions for us?<BR/><BR/>Note the Wikipedia entry you reference has posted "needs clean up" messages at the top of the page since November 2007. With this in mind, anyone using this article as an authoritative source is risking their own credibility -- and anyone following a Wikipedia citation (as one should) can easily determine this. The information on Wikipedia may be outdated, but it's certainly more current than the last issue of Encyclopaedia Britannica.<BR/><BR/>Many librarians find Wikipedia to be an extremely helpful reference source -- but only if you understand how to chase citations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19194800.post-39293101059284730792008-02-20T13:49:00.000-05:002008-02-20T13:49:00.000-05:00I agree that the content contained within the referenced Wikipedia article is inaccurate, outdated and of little (if any) value; however, to suggest that this is proof that Wikipedia is worthless and over-hyped shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia <I>is</I>. <BR/><BR/>Every Wikipedia article has an "edit this page" tab...if you feel something is wrong or inaccurate, rather than ranting about it, why don't you just change it? If you feel an article lacks depth or credibility, add something to it. <BR/><BR/>Wired editor Chris Anderson talks about on Why People are so uncomfortable with Wikipedia here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.thelongtail.com/the_long_tail/2005/12/the_probabilist.htmlJim Carrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01414506881570086797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19194800.post-26936669718475874852008-02-20T12:02:00.000-05:002008-02-20T12:02:00.000-05:00I went back and read the original controversy, and it just didn't seem fierce enough to warrant a total personal ban on participation in Wikipedia. So I just have to know: did you in fact go and let the guy buy you a drink at the conference and did it then become much fiercer than what we saw at your link?<BR/>If not, I'd say give them a second chance. It's a noble project, the hosts have got to be spending a huge amount of time dealing with misbehavior, and they probably just got touchy.<BR/>Sounds like that entry really needs someone like you.rebeccahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00940907849228232278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19194800.post-35087837645197224052008-02-20T10:17:00.000-05:002008-02-20T10:17:00.000-05:00"pedantic"... good word Patricia!<BR/><BR/>I'm just a little tired of the holier than thou attitude from people who support Wikipedia. They get it wrong - and in a big -way all the time. <BR/><BR/>LOL, Andrea I'm all for pedestals if the situation warrants but in this case, they need to go sit in a corner on one. Thanks for commenting. :)Debra Mastalerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06031174326858288903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19194800.post-32817127064238314392008-02-20T09:51:00.000-05:002008-02-20T09:51:00.000-05:00Hi Debra, Wikipedia is by no means infallible and I myself have found editors to be pedantic and uncooperative, even when they're actually in the wrong. I think Wikipedia is overrated, sadly.Patricia Skinnerhttp://www.blog.marketmou.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19194800.post-46264409430825868422008-02-20T09:38:00.000-05:002008-02-20T09:38:00.000-05:00Right on Debra!! I agree. The way Wikipedia is put on a pedestal is ridiculous. I remember when I first found out it was human edited... it totally shot down much of its creditability. I also remember when my boss tried to teach me about affiliate marketing and handed me a stack of info he collected for the 'Net. Unknowingly I commented that the write up looked like someone from another language translated it into English because the grammar was so bad. I later found out it was a Wikipedia post. Ouch. Google needs to get a clue and stop being so infatuated with the site. It's borderline "incestuous" :)Andreahttp://www.theseoptimist.comnoreply@blogger.com