enter the fray: our reader discussion forum

The Fray

Browse by Tags

Advanced

All Tags » wikipedia

Re: This actually increases access
Great point -- it will be interesting to see how one becomes a ''trusted'' reviewer -- mainly, whether requires knighting by an admin or an algorithmic judgment a la auto-confirmation. In the article I wrote about Wikipedia last year, I mentioned the interesting model at Helium for refereeing content. It wouldn't work for Wikipedia, but I believe ...
Posted to Webhead by cwilson on September 3, 2009
Re: I almost never use Wikipedia
I agree with dobbsfox on this point--the references at the bottom are particularly useful. Very interesting stuff about conspiracy theories and complex topics like Japanese, though. I've heard alternative medicine entries are particularly dicey, as we might imagine. Here's food for thought, though: Where Wikipedia doesn't stand up is in making ...
Posted to Webhead by cwilson on September 3, 2009
Re: I almost never use Wikipedia
I'd be curious to see examples of egregiously bad pages. I find that many people feel this way about Wikipedia on principle. My sense, however, is that it's better and more accurate than most people think, even for less trafficked subjects.
Posted to Webhead by cwilson on September 2, 2009
Lard is still 40% saturated fat!
Lest you believe, per this article, that it's actually good for you. And aren't there shortenings now available that are trans fat free? Also, nice job stealing a photo and most of your story from Wikipedia. Doesn't Slate fact-check its own material by independent means??
Posted to Food by sd232 on June 8, 2009
Wikipedia slaughtered the 100 US senators
If you'd like to peruse a nice long list (about 600+ edits) of just three months' worth of libel and defamation brought by Wikipedians against the 100 United States senators, I have a link for you. Truly, Manjoo, are you going to say what a wonderful job Wikipedia does, when over 90,000 people viewed the article about John McCain without so much ...
Posted to Technology by thekohser on October 18, 2008
Man, Is Farhad Manjoo Confused!
Farhad Manjoo has Knol confused with an encyclopedia, which it isn't.Farhad Manjoo also has Wikipedia confused with an encyclopedia, which it isn't. Man, is he confused! Here's a hint. The Big Diff between the two is that Wikipedia advertises itself as an encyclopedia, whereas Knol does not. I hope this helps clear away some of the ...
Posted to Technology by Jon Awbrey on October 18, 2008
it will be better...
Give it a chance. Google Knol will be better than Wikipedia. The technology and resources are there...
Posted to Technology by david wayne osedach on September 24, 2008
Long Tail isn't a Theory and lacks Value
PUNCHLINE: Anderson's Long Tail Theory is not a true theory and lacks value due to its narrow applicability to general decision science and, or economics. In other words, capital investors and business executives would be well advised to avoid applying the ''Long Tail'' theory to most business decisions - as the dot.com bust proved. A theory is ...
Posted to Technology by mwdenis on July 22, 2008
Re: Bad experiences with Wikipedia "super editors"
tdkehoe:Last week's ''The Economist'' had an excellent article about Wikipedia's problems, starting with the ''inclusionist debate'' (relevant to beckerbri's experience about the art photographer), and moving on to the ''wiki-lawyering'' I described. This led me to an idea. I haven't yet posted this to the ''Village Pump'' policy area, so I would ...
Posted to Technology by gzuckier on March 10, 2008
Problem with the Data
While there are several odd things about this study (why use administrators for the ''elite'' group instead of the users with the most edits, why factor in ''those that might become administrators later,'' etc.) the most important thing to note comes from the methodology section of the paper, most of which I quote here:In the following ...
Posted to Technology by Rhododendrites on March 1, 2008

1 2 3 4 Next >