Quote:
Originally Posted by carnutzzz
My aren't we a sourpuss?
I think you're missing the point. Why be so negative- why not show any interest in the merits of Wikipedia? Or how Wiki is really the embodiment of Web2.0, and another example of open-source collaboration- a concept that this planet is going to have to figure out a way to manage.
The site was originally an attempt to create an online encylcopedia, and yes, managed by scholars. In the end, it ran out of money, and was opened to the masses.
The result is a fascinating collaboration effort, albeit one in it's infancy. It really is a way for humans to contribute to and collect knowledge for the benefit of mankind.
I think by merely poo-pooing Wiki for what it is not, instead of recognizing the future impact of global collaboration and information sharing on businesses and the information poor, you've hardly told a story.
I would liken it to me judging a 2 year old's poor motor skills, inability to concentrate, and poor table manners as a human lacking any value.
These "kids" that are managing wiki may one day be the pioneers of the next information revolution.
|
No, Wikipedia will not "grow" into any "authoritative" information source -- at least not anytime soon.
It can be a place to get some information on subjects, but its reputation as a "rubbish" site is already well established. They've annoyed too many of the real experts on subjects that they will not have competent contributors for a long time to come.
When idiot teenagers are given the authority to edit (or completely silence) real experts on subjects, and the "mob" determines what is the "best" information, the result is the reign of mediocre information -- which is what Wikipeida represents.