|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 03 2013 @ 07:51 AM EDT |
PJ,
Their model was a first order approximation of a crowd sourced encyclopedia.
That is works at all puts away the closed licensed model of Microsoft Encarta,
World Book, and Britannica. It allows me without spending additional marginal
money to get a first order view, including astroturf, of a subject.
Yes, a better more accurate and objective free open license encyclopedia needs
to gain the informational content of Wikipedia. It hasn't happened yet. I
don't have time, but someone can lead the transition from either within or
outside of Wikipedia to fix their model to prevent the astroturfing.
We as a civilization of free thinking human beings do deserve better. Hopefully
we will get there sooner rather than later, and hopefully Kurzweil can put some
of the development and computational capability of what I believe is the worlds
best corporation to work to do these things.
I try and stay focused on my objectives, my personal mission statement, and
ignore the chaff.
You did a great job with this blog. Nothing can change that for people with the
intelligence to read through the headlines. Not even in inaccurate Wikipedia
article from the past. You helped prevent SCO from killing FOSS Linux and we
(human social/economic civilization) are all better off for it.
Cheers,
Anon[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: designerfx on Friday, May 03 2013 @ 11:33 AM EDT |
the fact that their model doesn't fit for what we need to
have fair and verifiable information guarantees that
wikipedia should not be considered a place for facts.
it's a place for aggregate information. Whether that's
truthful or not is entirely unrelated.
Really, how many times do articles have to be controversial
where the end result is that some fact has been spun, nearly
as well as a lawyer can do, to drive someone to a conclusion
different than the information might provide by itself?
The fact that wikipedia dared to call itself complete, when
they are haphazard at best, is proof of their untrustworthy-
ness.
What people miss is wikipedia is probably the best thing we
have at the moment - it does not mean it's the definitive
solution.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|