In his blog, Marcus Gilroy-Ware who has written for openDemocracy about Wikipedia, defends the open source encyclopedia from The Register's Andrew Orlowski. Orlowski's article, "Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems" has been buzzing around the internet propelled by horror that someone could say something so mean about a collaborative success story. "Yes it's garbage," he says, "but it's delivered so much faster!" Admittedly, he makes some good points (you should read it) but not enough to merit such scorn. Like Marcus, I'm left with the sense that Orlowski doesn't quite get it. Has he ever edited a page himself?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wikipedia sucks?:
It's amazing that Orlowski seems to have a problem with the factual contents of wikipedia but can't seem to get his own facts straight (or even corrected after the fact) as a journalist.
Posted by: Thomas Hawk | 24 Oct 2005 17:09:02
Wikipedia is seriously flawed because of the huge level of censorship of obvious facts and because certain retarded Wikipedia users have to constantly remove useful links added to an article. Wikipedia is almost as bad as Communist "Fucking" China, the worst country on Earth. If you're reading this Communists, America says Fuck You.
Posted by: Eclipse McMahon (my Wikipedia name) | 22 Nov 2005 22:49:12
I have been a long-time supporter of Wikipedia. I now find that I was wrong to support it. Wikipedia is suppose to be an objective source of factual information, particularly historical information. Yet, Wikipedia has chosen to censor a link to a video that shows British soldiers assulting children in Iraq, not because the video is irrelevant, unnewsworthy, or inaccurate, but rather because the American army does not want anyone to see it.
This is like removing all images/videos documenting the holocaust. The article before the censorship can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_War&oldid=39541328
However, no one is going to read the past history of the article, so the censorship is rather effective.
How can the public trust Wikipedia if it allows those who have political power to rewrite history? I, for one, will never trust Wikipedia again.
Posted by: Truthiness | 14 Feb 2006 21:13:14
I agree with Eclipse. Wikipedia is more like Iran, China, and North Korea. You can't say "Conspiracy Theory" on AFD, because it's considered disruption. Bah.
Posted by: Edtropolis | 23 Jun 2007 17:03:06
I was wondering what some of the more mature members here do about dating. It seems much harder for [url=http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-kUYhrwg8erJlpK.SFy3uoJga58Q.kQ--?cq=1&p=2 ]older singles[/url] to find a mate, so I might be turning to online dating for older singles.
Posted by: francinedd | 2 Nov 2007 20:42:15
Anyone bought from www.belrion.com before ? heard they are a paypal world seller and are macfee
secured. Appreciate some feedback from anyone ^^
Posted by: lavanyaa | 5 Aug 2008 19:07:44
Fuck you francined, this is not a place to spam. Why not do that on Wikipedia? That's where all the dumb people who would read thar crap are.
Posted by: MPG | 27 Nov 2009 18:18:29
lavanyaa, fuck you to (see above message to francined).
Yes I have heard about that site, I heard it sucks donkey balls.
Posted by: MPG | 27 Nov 2009 18:20:55
The comments to this entry are closed.