[oclug] Linux talk tonight.

[Andy Civil]

Brad Barnett wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:01:59 -0500
> Andy Civil <andycivil at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Brad Barnett wrote:
>>
>> (talking about wikipedia)
>>
>>> It is not bad at times, yes.  Of course, the only way to be sure that
>>> the page has not been recently vandalized, or that the current editors
>>> are sane.. is to check the history and to check with other pages.
>> They've actually addressed this issue, and if you prefer, you can choose
>> the "permanent link" tool in the toolbox on the left; this gives a url 
>> for a specific version of a page; you can therefore be assured that the 
>> reference you give will not contain vandalised content. Of course, you 
>> could also use the same feature to ensure that you DID reference 
>> inaccurate content, but if you visit such a page
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avril_Lavigne&oldid=172617512
>> you will see a warning that the page is not current.
>>
>> All in all, the system seems as close to perfection as one could hope
>> for.
>>
> 
> This is not a solution, but a step towards a solution.
> 
> The only *real* solution is for the Wikipedia to publish pages.. even on a
> daily basis.  Each page can of course individually be published, there are
> clearly some that may remain static for months or years.
> 
> Of course, the very fact that over the last year the Wikipedia
> has implemented such changes, proves my point.  They are having
> issues, and rightly so.  Specific suggestions that I and other have made,
> are being slowly implemented in a step by step measure as a fix.
> 
> That doesn't mean that the Wikipedia is "close to perfection".  It
> certainly has not been in the past, and it has a ways to go to get there.
>  Further, you don't change the nature of something someone says is flawed,
> and then claim that it is not flawed.
> 
> That's a bit of revisionist history, yes?
> 
> Anyhow, while I like what you've mentioned above, as a general tool, it
> still doesn't help the main issue.  When a someone goes to Google, sees a
> Wikipedia entry on a topic they have interest in, clicks on it, and gets
> something completely different... how does the above help?  When someone
> goes to Wikipedia and does a search, how does the above help?
> 
> For the above system to have value, it needs to be a rigid publishing
> system.  That is, by default you get the static page, and if you want you
> can see the 'live' page.
> 
> People need to realise that anonymous editing of the Wikipedia is a
> failed experiment, as a _publishing_ method.  Throughout this entire
> discussion (a discussion that goes back two years now, I believe), one
> must keep in mind that I have only minor issues with anonymous editing. 
> It's publishing that's the big thorn in my side.
> 
> Wikipedians know this.  That's why the Wikipedia is changing.  Hey, that's
> the nature of experimentation.  Sometimes it succeeds, sometimes you have
> to modify what you're doing.

Today's Dilbert is pertinent. I'll try to attach it, I don't know if this list
strips attachments or not...

-- 
Andy