Comments for The Wikipedian

Comment on The Agony and Ecstasy of Wikidata by William Beutler

William Beutler — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:08:56 +0000

You’re right, thanks for catching that, Michael. Now fixed in the article.

Comment on The Agony and Ecstasy of Wikidata by Michael

Michael — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:04:51 +0000

Excellently summarizing opinions, thank you! Just to avoid misunderstandings, Wikidata is developed by Wikimedia Deutschland, not by the WMF. The project will be handed over and maintained by the Foundation in the future, though.

Comment on Public Lives: Jim Hawkins and Wikipedia’s Privacy Dilemma by Sterling Ericsson

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:11:55 +0000

Hey, you quoted me.

But, yeah, you summarized it pretty well. If he would just explain why he doesn’t want the information in the article, i’m sure he would have a much stronger case for its removal, if not outright deletion of the article (if it was a good reason).

Though, his refusal to answer why seems to imply that his only reason is that he doesn’t like Wikipedia and nothing more than that.

Comment on Public Lives: Jim Hawkins and Wikipedia’s Privacy Dilemma by William Beutler

William Beutler — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 03:25:04 +0000

I agree, it’s a strange argument. Earlier today, I invited Hawkins via Twitter to write something up to post here. He said he’ll think about it.

Comment on Public Lives: Jim Hawkins and Wikipedia’s Privacy Dilemma by Dave Thurlston

Dave Thurlston — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 18:59:08 +0000

How can publishing what county he’s in be an invasion of privacy when the radio station he broadcasts on everyday is named after the county? I don’t understand his beef.

Comment on Verifiability and Truth: What John Siracusa Doesn’t Get About Wikipedia by Wikipedia, Verifiability, and Truth « The Text Pistols

Wikipedia, Verifiability, and Truth « The Text Pistols — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:50:59 +0000

[...] not for truth but verifiability. This is explained in a post on the blog The Wikipedian entitled Verifiability and Truth: What John Siracusa Doesn’t Get About Wikipedia. In his post, William Beutler cites the the relevant part from Wikipedia’s [...]

Comment on Verifiability and Truth: What John Siracusa Doesn’t Get About Wikipedia by Matt

Matt — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:38:29 +0000

Great response to Hypercritical, which is also a favorite podcast of mine. But this episode was, hands-down, Worst Episode Ever. I was just astonished at how incoherent and misinformed it was. But it’s also sad that Siracusa’s frustrating experience is likely common for many new users who try to use it and get burned.

Comment on Verifiability and Truth: What John Siracusa Doesn’t Get About Wikipedia by Niklas B

Niklas B — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:18:10 +0000

I threw away my Wikipedia account after one skirmish too much with an editor with an axe to grind on a topic where I knew more (and had sources) could not get through and get my edits to stick. I have tried to contribute to some obscure topics regarding translations, language and some technology but more often than not have my contributions been deleted fist by some editor and when I protested a long-time administrator friend of said editor would step in and side with the older, more well-connected, editor.

Some of my experiences are similar to those of Siracusa’s and I found myself nodding and agreeing with what he said. I have been told again and again that a printed source is more desirable than an internet source. So YES, Wikipedia editors DO in fact believe that to be true.

It is sad that ignorance can trump knowledge and sources on Wikipedia. It is poison for our beloved resource.

Please, keep defending Wikipedia, but be advised that not there are many editors with power and an agenda that are trying to undo your work on this blog, you would perhaps do better by explaining to them what you wrote here, because if you did and they accepted it, that would improve the quality of WIkipedia. A lot.

If not, I hope Wikipedia will someday include this in their footer “The content of this article is the sole point of view of a handful of Wikipedia editors and may or may not be truthful. Wikipedia’s goal is verifiability, not truth.”

Comment on Wikipedia Gets on its SOPA Box by Sal Lucanto

Sal Lucanto — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 03:51:20 +0000

I think SOPA and PIPA are 2 more disgusting bills being pushed through taking away our constitutional rights, including the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012(NDAA) taking away our 5th constitutional right to due process! I agree with Wikipedia to oppose this act, if we don’t stand up for our rights soon we’ll have none left. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012

Comment on Wikipedia Gets on its SOPA Box by Brandon

Brandon — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:12:54 +0000

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. I’ve got to ask: what do the organization and all of these volunteers hope to accomplish by taking the encyclopedia offline? “Raising awareness” is fine and dandy but plenty of people are already doing that elsewhere. This isn’t an obscure cause. The topic is all over the place as it is.

My prediction: all Wikipedia will actually accomplish is to irritate the hell out of its users and those who rely on it. This is obviously not a choice they would make if they were operating within a for-profit enterprise.