The erudite sneer at those who rely on Wikipedia for authoritative source material. Wikipedia is an Internet "encyclopedia" that taps into the collective mass of knowledge by letting anyone author articles or make changes. The sneerage focuses on the notion that if anyone can alter the info, then how accurate can it really be? Wiki's founders believe people who know better will quickly correct inaccurate or misleading information.
To an extent, that works. I don't recall the details of my personal experience -- what it was I was looking up -- but I found an article where some curious bit of information seemed wrong to me. I sent the link to a friend to ask if he agreed. By the time he got to Wiki, he could find no trace of the information to which I referred. The article was correct. Oddly, the cached page on my computer still showed the errors. We investigated and discovered the article had been edited not even an hour prior. Someone else had seen it. Someone else had corrected it.
But as news articles all over have been indicating for years, notables and not-so-notables alike have been abusing their ability to edit Wiki articles by changing things to suit their own views or whacked senses of humor. Congresscritters or their staff have been whitewashing articles about themselves. Others have altered President Bush's middle name. Many put left-leaning or right-leaning spin in various articles. Some changes are so subtle, it's doubtful that the vigilant can catch them all.
Now a Cal Tech grad student and self-described hacker named Virgil Griffith has created software he calls "Wikiscanner" that pinpoints origins of Wikipedia edits. Now we can see that the computers of various corporations, US political party headquarters, heads of worldwide church organizations, and even the CIA are being used to whitewash, insult, or spin information.
The CIA? If I had had substantial faith in the ability of that behemoth spy organization to operate well, it would be shaken. I mean, surely they of all organizations ought to know how to mask their IP addresses and go through anonymous proxy servers. <g>
Then again ... maybe it's a different spy organization that's masked its IP address to make it only seem like it's coming from the CIA ...
Hmmmmm.
I keep adding my name under "Notable Alumni" at my high school's Wiki entry and some fucker keeps deleting it.
Isn't "notable" a subjective term? I think I'm notable. But apparently I don't rate as much as these guys:
* Author Len Clements
* Cinematographer Lance Acord
* Comedian Scott Capurro
* Comedian Arj Barker
* ESPN Anyalyst Steve Lavin
* Musician Scott Thunes
* Musician Terry Bozzio
* Musician Brad Hargreaves
* Musician Tal Morris
* Physicist Alex Zettl
* RoboCop Screenwriter Edward Neumeier
* Sports announcer Dave "Stats" Friedman
* Taiko Drummer Robinson Wadsworth
Without Googling any of the musicians, quick, who did they play with?
Notable my ass.
Wiki seems suspect to me on numerous levels. But it really isn't any different than the standard encyclopaedias we grew up with. Many articles in those were biased. But they couldn't be immediately corrected.
In it's defense, Wiki DOES have a way of flagging entries as being in dispute so at least yoiu get a heads up that way.
Taiko drummer?
I suppose "notable" would be "did you get your name printed somewhere other than on the Internet?" and then you'd qualify.
So write a letter to the editor of your local rag, then you can qualify as "notable".
Artisan Mark F*
Yeah, "taiko drummer" - Snort!
I've been published in numerous papers' "Letters to the Editor" section, including the SF Comical on several occasions...
*SNIF*
Maybe it's because I put my work URL too and they thought that was advertising (which it was intended to be).
I think someone's jealous!
Actually, he's probably a fine taiko drummer so that was hardly fair. I certainly don't qualify as a taiko drummer so my hat is off to him.
Yah, having just now googled him, I have to say he qualifies as "notable." If I wore a hat, I'd take it off to him.
I guess you're only notable if you're an entertainer, or the odd physicist.
Kind of ties in with that recent post of Law Wench's.
I love to be entertained, especially by musicians, but I don't get the fatal attraction we have with celebrities either.
I use Wiki all the time in doing research for my books, but I use it as a launching pad for other sources. It's a great place to start; I look at it as a kind of overview for a topic, and there are often numerous links at the end of an entry for original sources.
I don't see what the problem is. I suspect that people at the CIA have a pretty good handle on things that happened at the CIA. There's certainly nothing more wrong with someone there throwing his or her own two cents in than with some of the tinfoil hat crowd that do it on a regular basis.
What cracks me up is the bad writing. Shitload of wannabe notables in high school out there.