Comments on: Wikipedia or Potemkinpedia? http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/03/29/wikipedia-or-potemkinpedia/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:39:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Nihiltres http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/03/29/wikipedia-or-potemkinpedia/comment-page-1/#comment-2662 Nihiltres Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:42:57 +0000 http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=1777#comment-2662 Carr's argument is mainly weak in that it ignores the intentions behind the protections applied to articles. Essentially, semi-protection's only <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy" rel="nofollow">supposed to be used</a> used where it's needed—where vandalism would otherwise be so often that it might get out of hand. As Wikipedia gets <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions" rel="nofollow">more</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Abuse_filter" rel="nofollow">better</a> tools to fight vandalism, crude methods of prevention, like semi-protection, can be used more sparingly. Wikipedia <em>wants</em> to be open, and the evidence is simple in that only a few thousand (≤5,000) of Wikipedia's millions (>2.8M) of articles are at all protected from editing. That's less than 0.2% of all articles. What's besides the point, of course, is that Carr's preferred Britannica is only edited by its staff—in a city analogy, that would be what, an oppressive dictatorship? :) Carr’s argument is mainly weak in that it ignores the intentions behind the protections applied to articles. Essentially, semi-protection’s only supposed to be used used where it’s needed—where vandalism would otherwise be so often that it might get out of hand. As Wikipedia gets more and better tools to fight vandalism, crude methods of prevention, like semi-protection, can be used more sparingly. Wikipedia wants to be open, and the evidence is simple in that only a few thousand (≤5,000) of Wikipedia’s millions (>2.8M) of articles are at all protected from editing. That’s less than 0.2% of all articles.

What’s besides the point, of course, is that Carr’s preferred Britannica is only edited by its staff—in a city analogy, that would be what, an oppressive dictatorship? :)

]]> By: Daniel Tunkelang http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/03/29/wikipedia-or-potemkinpedia/comment-page-1/#comment-2660 Daniel Tunkelang Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:01:56 +0000 http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=1777#comment-2660 Yeah, I suppose you're right. But he has a large audience, and Wikipedia gets enough crap thrown at it as it is. Constructive criticism is healthy, but this seems more like a low blow. Yeah, I suppose you’re right. But he has a large audience, and Wikipedia gets enough crap thrown at it as it is. Constructive criticism is healthy, but this seems more like a low blow.

]]> By: David Gerard http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/03/29/wikipedia-or-potemkinpedia/comment-page-1/#comment-2659 David Gerard Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:09:05 +0000 http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=1777#comment-2659 Nicholas Carr is more or less trolling for clicks whenever he writes about Wikipedia. Nicholas Carr is more or less trolling for clicks whenever he writes about Wikipedia.

]]>