2005-01-24

The Dark Side of wikipedia

I've been quite keen on wikipedia - here and in sci.env and in a number of places. However, it has a downside, which is laid out on the table for you to view its entrails at: Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley if you want to see something ugly.

3 Comments:

Anonymous DrMaggie said...

WoW!

After reaeding all that, I don't think I'll ever dare to participate in Wikipedia (although I must say I have been tempted quite a few times), if this is a typical example of what happens when there are disagreements over content...

12:40 am  
Blogger Belette said...

Hmmm, well, I put that in to balance my overenthusiasm earlier. And don't check wiki now, its servers re recovering from a power failure.

But... don't let me put you off either. The debate begun then is continuing, and with contributions from other good people is swinging over to sanity.

So, I would encourage you to contribute to wikipedia (not now: wait a day or two) but best to begin by sticking to non-controversial articles.

9:20 pm  
Anonymous DrMaggie said...

Belette said:

"So, I would encourage you to contribute to wikipedia (not now: wait a day or two) but best to begin by sticking to non-controversial articles."

Yes, that probably is the way to go - but then again, a statement or article that appears wholly noncontroversial to one person could be a fierce attack on someone else's pet theory...

Anyway, although I may not agree on all you say here or at RealClimate, I do value your efforts to instill a more "scientific" method on the 'Net, including stringent definitions & problem descriptions and critical evaluation of information sources.

Keep up the good work!

11:13 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home