Vesa works as a Librarian and maybe you met him in Pispala Library? Anyhow he is also a wikipedia editor in the English wikipedia - he is aware of other initiatives and here he gives some balance to the chat.
m
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Vesa Lehtinen<sproutleaf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: michel debates alternatives to wikipedia To: Mark Petz <ravenwyn@gmail.com>
The
environment for contributions from a scientist or anyone serious is so
bad there (anyone can challenge or even cancel your stuff without giving
a proper reason, and many do) that a serious c...Mehr anzeigen
There were scientists who were treated as editors as usual. They were angry that their POV was not accepted without references and was questioned; WP folks are very wary of "original research". Some experts don't like to be treated as common editors.
And now the Citizendium boasts that it accepts experts - and Larry Sanger calls Jimmy Blames a pornographer....
Ian KormanI
tried to write a single entry in there about a management concept. I
tried to get the creator of the concept to give me info from the horses
mouth so that my entry couldn't be challenged. The creator of the
concept refused to contribute. At the end of the day, WIKIpedia is just
too complicated to contribute to for me.
Was there references to web article or a book? Info from the "horses mouth" could be too easily interpreted as Original Research, especially when it's connected to management jargon or other buzzwords. Too many PR companies have tried to insert their favorite management fads into Wikipedia.
Gestern um 09:02 ·
Michel Bauwensthe
fundamental problem is that the editors in power are less knowledgeable
than the contributors; and that the contributors are powerless against
the ruling prejudices of the editorial layer.
Who are these editors? Everybody active in Wikipedia is an editor. The "upper level" are system administrators and WP Foundation personnel.
Markus Petzmore
useful perhaps is just putting links to related articles as often what
is not included is due to a narrow cultural perspective. Although I do
wonder why episodes of US TV programs have such long entries compared to
real world articles - surely they are not really more significant - it
has to be a marketing aspect.
Because too many editors (or contributors, if you will) know more about popular culture than the real world. And those who would write about the real world don't get involved because of Wikipedia's reputation of being a popular culture encyclopedia. A vicious circle.
I
think it is time for a National Public Wikipedia that would aggregate
many wiki domains including the legacy Wikipedia and forks like
Citizendium. This public metawiki would not intervene in legacy subwiki
editorial and political issues b...Mehr anzeigen
I think Larry Sanger would sue somebody calling Citizendium a "fork" of Wikipedia. By the way, Wikipedia does accept Citizendium articles as sources but not the vice versa.
-- ===
"It is not our purpose to become each other; it is the recognize each other, to learn to see the other and honour them for what they are; each the other's opposite and complement."
