Who's Afraid of Wikipedia
E 'became a global giant. But no real control over content.
So the great encyclopedia on the Internet is at the center of bitter controversy. That will end up in court
Alessandro Gilioli
http://www.espressonline.it/eol/free/jsp/detail.jsp?m1s=null&m2s=c&idCategory=4797&idContent=1264350
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Sull'Espresso si parla di cose trite e ritrite. Nulla di nuovo.
Si discute dell'attendibilità di alcune voci e alla fine, dulcis in fundo, di punto di vista neutrale ma in maniera assai superficiale e succinta...
Cose vere, indubbiamente. Il tono però non mi piace. E' come se tutto fosse da buttare e l'informazione in rete fosse impossibile.
Verso il punto di vista neutrale, così tanto osannato da wikipedia, anche io ho senza dubbio molte riserve. Innanzitutto perchè credo che non sia quasi mai applicato su wikipedia e in secondo luogo - ma le due ragioni sono strettamente collegate - il cosiddetto NPOV (punto di vista neutrale), a mio avviso, non esiste.
I have many doubts about the fact that an encyclopedia is "free" ... doubts ... we also say some certainty! What I think about it I said on the mailing list for HK. I copy and paste:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::
Behind the wiki has a great philosophy and the origins of noble intentions.
Without taking anything away from this medium, the wiki, which is having a great success and
is spreading everywhere - there are people who are writing books, for example - does not surprise me if something
perhaps even much, not went to wikipedia, that encyclopedia.
Beyond what the papers say - the papers always say everything and nothing
- criticism not just come from those outside, but also by those who are
into the net, from people who live in them in some circuits the first person and
shares that philosophy and intentions of the wiki.
My meeting with wikipedia, as far as I'm concerned, it was not the best
and many things, there, do not share them. Meeting with wikipedia
not mean the encounter with the medium, but with whom
that half the runs, not the casual reader, the navigator
careful as you want to believe, but a real choice team does not know according to which skills
whose duties are, as far as I got to
check with my own eyes:
- to suddenly not edit an entry - in fact block the
page changes - if not mean any change made by a staff
like - delete an entry just inserted in its entirety if the staff (and not all)
believes that the entry on Wikipedia should not be there.
- ban an ip address discussion of who defends everything
soul its case against them that may be offered as
indisputable.
Long live freedom!
Their first reason is NPOV, the neutral point of view. But what is
neutral point of view?? Who decides that this view is neutral?
There is a point of view neutral? They do not even know what the point of view
neutral!
decide of their own: the staff and those who stand behind them ...
Just to let you understand a bit: I have defended the hacker entry on Wikipedia,
in my opinion very, very poorly drawn and from which leaked (maybe
leaked yet) a neutral point of view, absolutely not. For example
was cited and even linked in wikipedia, Mediaservice, the company
Raoul Chiesa and business, beyond what I think of Raoul Chiesa -
for me such as the Church is a cracker and must be placed in voice cracker - is tied to business
not hacking! Citing a company, reserve a place
Wikipedia is not advertising in them? And the publicity that you have
a neutral point of view?
I had to struggle a lot to remove the item Mediaservice Hacker
yet he was clearly not a neutral voice ... How do you explain that? Why
the staff was not convinced of this? I also struggled to put the Church in cracker
Raoul (Raoul Chiesa but then they entered back into
hackers and I do not think it was any user, believe me!).
I had to fight then. My comparison is not the case with the people of
network, but with the staff, from 4:00 to 5:00 people about ways
very questionable. I looked under investigation.
Kindness and openness non-existent. Are, in my view, very authoritarian.
master, control, feel god their favorite entries.
The wiki is in my heart, always strive for the means of wikipedia and
nevertheless I hope that this will improve over time
encyclopedia. But dare not ever throw me to give my contribution
respect to entries relating to the hacker culture ... It 'too hard
. You inflate the liver and you hope not to make you ridiculous,
subjecting them to disrespect and insults.
But it's not a problem. As long as you use a wiki is not a problem ... the
freedom is everywhere!
Without taking anything away from this medium, the wiki, which is having a great success and
is spreading everywhere - there are people who are writing books, for example - does not surprise me if something
perhaps even much, not went to wikipedia, that encyclopedia.
Beyond what the papers say - the papers always say everything and nothing
- criticism not just come from those outside, but also by those who are
into the net, from people who live in them in some circuits the first person and
shares that philosophy and intentions of the wiki.
My meeting with wikipedia, as far as I'm concerned, it was not the best
and many things, there, do not share them. Meeting with wikipedia
not mean the encounter with the medium, but with whom
that half the runs, not the casual reader, the navigator
careful as you want to believe, but a real choice team does not know according to which skills
whose duties are, as far as I got to
check with my own eyes:
- to suddenly not edit an entry - in fact block the
page changes - if not mean any change made by a staff
like - delete an entry just inserted in its entirety if the staff (and not all)
believes that the entry on Wikipedia should not be there.
- ban an ip address discussion of who defends everything
soul its case against them that may be offered as
indisputable.
Long live freedom!
Their first reason is NPOV, the neutral point of view. But what is
neutral point of view?? Who decides that this view is neutral?
There is a point of view neutral? They do not even know what the point of view
neutral!
decide of their own: the staff and those who stand behind them ...
Just to let you understand a bit: I have defended the hacker entry on Wikipedia,
in my opinion very, very poorly drawn and from which leaked (maybe
leaked yet) a neutral point of view, absolutely not. For example
was cited and even linked in wikipedia, Mediaservice, the company
Raoul Chiesa and business, beyond what I think of Raoul Chiesa -
for me such as the Church is a cracker and must be placed in voice cracker - is tied to business
not hacking! Citing a company, reserve a place
Wikipedia is not advertising in them? And the publicity that you have
a neutral point of view?
I had to struggle a lot to remove the item Mediaservice Hacker
yet he was clearly not a neutral voice ... How do you explain that? Why
the staff was not convinced of this? I also struggled to put the Church in cracker
Raoul (Raoul Chiesa but then they entered back into
hackers and I do not think it was any user, believe me!).
I had to fight then. My comparison is not the case with the people of
network, but with the staff, from 4:00 to 5:00 people about ways
very questionable. I looked under investigation.
Kindness and openness non-existent. Are, in my view, very authoritarian.
master, control, feel god their favorite entries.
The wiki is in my heart, always strive for the means of wikipedia and
nevertheless I hope that this will improve over time
encyclopedia. But dare not ever throw me to give my contribution
respect to entries relating to the hacker culture ... It 'too hard
. You inflate the liver and you hope not to make you ridiculous,
subjecting them to disrespect and insults.
But it's not a problem. As long as you use a wiki is not a problem ... the
freedom is everywhere!
Friday, December 30, 2005 3:34 PM
0 comments:
Post a Comment