Over the past year, I’d argued that Digg had become what it sought to replace: a handful ultimately selecting what was worthy of becoming front-page headlines for a large property.
Today, it’s Wikipedia’s turn:
The group is forming itself into two factions: inclusionists and deletionists. The deletionists say that an encyclopedia is not a dumping ground for facts; standards of notability have to be upheld or their pages will fill with trivia. Inclusionists reply that Wikipedia’s great advantage is that it has no space limit and that an entry of interest to just a few people is justified. Niche articles will never trouble most people, since access is through search.
Read more. I knew Wikipedia was in trouble when an editor removed some rather factual, objective excerpts I’d added a handful of topics I’m well versed in: namely (and oddly enough…) Def Leppard, Iran and Alexander the Great (I know… don’t ask). The reason: none given… that line about inclusionists and deletionists is very well put. I don’t think this takes away from Wikipedia’s grand place in Web lore, but for generations going ahead, it won’t be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it will simply be, well, an encyclopedia, no different really than World Book or Britannica…
Tags: Wikipedia|
Posted By: Ashkan Karbasfrooshan | Oct 11th
Subscribe:
October 11th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
I’ve tried to add a lot of stuff onto Wikipedia, but the Wiki faithful always ended up removing it. After a while, you just give up.
For stock news, I like to use ValueWiki. They let investors create a wiki from a finance standpoint. There is lots of information that the average wiki doesn’t care about, but can be helpful for investors. Things like being able to track how much debt is link to LIBOR or links to interviews with executives. The best part about it, is that they will let you create wiki’s for any company, even if it’s not culturally significant.