     
 
The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Ikkyu2’s essay
WR Editorials
post Sat 1st September 2007, 1:32pm
Post #1


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri 6th Jul 2007, 5:16am
Member No.: 1,861



In 2005, Wikipedia user Ikkyu2 wrote what was to become a well distributed and resonant criticism of Wikipedia. Though the essay was eventually deleted at the writer’s request, a copy was saved and it was hosted on another user’s wikipedia page. Very recently, this copied version was also deleted for unknown reasons.
For posterity’s sake we’ve [...]

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20070901/ikkyu2s-essay/
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kato
post Thu 9th July 2009, 9:25pm
Post #2


dhd
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm
Member No.: 767



I've just spotted a reply by Ikkyu2 written in June this year to this blog post (which was a copy of an essay originally written in 2005)

QUOTE(Ikkyu2)
I’ve changed my mind about a number of things since I wrote this essay, which is one of the reasons I deleted it.

Wikipedia is actually a good source of information about things that other information sources wouldn’t consider worth spending editor time or page space on. For instance, I had always wondered what the title of the Led Zeppelin song, “Bron-Yr-Aur Stomp,” meant. Turns out it’s the name of a small cottage in a valley in Wales, owned by a friend of Robert Plant’s father. This piece of information is in one book somewhere, and maybe one interview. And it’s on Wikipedia, accompanied by a photograph of the house.

Wikipedia’s great for that kind of thing.

For things that people are really interested in, though - things that are of interest to many, complicated, heavily investigated, the things that most Wikipedia users use Wikipedia to research - it fails, for the reasons I stated above. It continues to fail spectacularly to this day. And, as a physician who speaks to my patients and finds out what they know, I can tell you that it often fails dangerously by giving wrong information to people who desperately need right information.

I don’t contribute to Wikipedia much anymore, and I still use it. And I’m kind of fond of it. I’d miss it if it went away. But it was the first entry to fill a particular information void that has always existed. I am eagerly awaiting the next step, the thing that kicks it to the curb. (And if I knew what that was, I’d be building it.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th 2 17, 10:29am
 
     
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12512
wikipediareview.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-09
60137
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:INTJORWERS2XIIDZ4DJC62C4HBKA6DCJ
<urn:uuid:e3744b2d-c76d-465c-84e7-8bfe0ed65920>
2017-02-26T10:29:59Z
192.254.236.99
sha1:35V2KJWDJCKJURT7VVUOH6HSBP6YEZE5
<urn:uuid:e65b9799-0d4e-4998-b204-54ea88179247>
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12512
length
response
<urn:uuid:3fb4f4e8-d396-4b25-b959-00eeec9bd836>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-171-10-108.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-09
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for February 2017
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf