I have a love-hate attitude toward Wikipedia. Not the usual sort of "can we trust it?" or "should we block it?" kind of attitude. I love the idea of Wikipedia, the idea that you can create a valuable resource by letting anyone make whatever change they want. But I hate what has happened more recently, with the evolution of Wikipedia 'editors' who do nothing but vandalize, posting notices saying that some article is inadequate, a candidate for deletion, or whatever. And it is with some irony that I post the question to these editors that Doug Johnson poses to Wikipedia critics: is it better to ban the less worth articles, or to boost them? I think that if Wikipedia were an article in Wikipedia (some nice recursive thing there), the Wikipedia editors would ban it, because it's not a reliable published source. So I think that unless they fix this editing problem, Wikipedia is due for a long and slow decline into oblivion, swirling around the drain of recursive self-immolation.
Today: 4 Total: 87 [Direct link] [Share]
