The I Hate Wikipedia Blog - Criticisms and Reviews

Jeff Merkey and Wikipedia

Nanabozho — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:38:38 GMT

"Jeff Merkey, a former computer scientist at Novell, claims Wales told him in 2006 that in exchange for a substantial donation from Merkey, he would edit his uncomplimentary Wikipedia entry to make it more favourable.

Merkey made a $US5000 ($5455) donation in 2006 and the edit history for his Wikipedia entry showed that, around the same time, Wales personally made changes to the entry after wiping it out completely and ordering editors to start over." More

I think this situation shows a downside of relying too much on one person for success. As far as crimes go, this doesn't seem that terrible. Wikipedia will write a bit more about itself and its problems, and Wales learned something important we hope. I'd even guess that Wikipedia will fix itself here. We perhaps have an interesting case study for the future, with Wales once again a featured actor in it.

Wikipedia axing cute and lovable Pokemon

Nanabozho — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:29:03 GMT

"I'm no fan of Pokemon, but the deletion of well-written Pokemon articles demonstrate the motives of "deletionists". Pokemon characters have lots of media and sources associated with them, have a lot of fans who would be interested in reading these articles and editing them, and are "notable". They're also a great way to get people involved in Wikipedia: they come to the site, see how good our coverage of that subject is, and begin contributing/getting interested in the project." http://wikip.blogspot.com/

The above author makes a number of good points. It's been my opinion that the deletionists may have a point that, "less is more", in that a higher quality leads to more use of Wikipedia, the one highest goal of WP should be "More".

More good things and options are available to the encyclopedia when there is more traffic. A goal of a site about everything would be my choice. We don't an entity that keeps throwing good parts of itself away.

Wikimedia, Wales and Wool

Nanabozho — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:16:44 GMT

"So I'm going to make one simple statement: Jimmy has never used Wikimedia money to subsidize his personal expenditures. Indeed, he has consistently put the Foundation's interests ahead of his own, and has erred on the side of personally paying for his own Wikimedia-related expenditures, rather than the reverse." Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner

She was responding to accusations by ex-Wikimedia Foundation employee Danny Wool. Then we have:

"This questionable use of Foundation funds stopped in 2006, largely because Jimbeau's credit card was taken away." - Danny Wool

OK, so we don't have perfection from Wales or Wikipedia. I do see the possibility of some un-reported income for taxpayer Wales though. If your employer pays for your personal expenses, that is generally taxable income. The next question might be, what were the auditors doing? The question after that would be, does this impact the Foundation's non-profit status? I'd have to assume that wouldn't be too big of a deal, since any amounts would be relatively insignificant.

Misery (Australian band) still needs citations

Nanabozho — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:05:04 GMT

This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2008)

The saga of Misery (band) and Misery (Australian band) continues. I added the above tag to the Wikipedia article about the Australian band Misery that survived being nominated for deletion by myself. The article still has no citations that I can see.

The people who defended this article: A1octopus, Capitalistroadster, BrianFG, Hesperian, SatuSuro, Rocket000,
Since it was DEFINITELY not invented, I guess it stays. My band, Misery (band) is still doesn't have its article on Wikipedia, even though that article was DEFINITELY not invented. I still can't reconcile why one is toast, and the other is not? It might have something to do with different personalities fighting their little battles, not as an attempt to improve Wikipedia, but to try to prove something. Did I just write something ironic? Perhaps.

Wikia's Weird Dream

Nanabozho — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:17:49 GMT

"Inexcusable waste of time. Huge disappointment. Crappy.

Those were some of the more politely expressed sentiments that greeted the Jan. 7 launch of Wikia Search, a new Internet search engine conjured by the minds behind Wikipedia." More

DGG Misery

Nanabozho — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:34:54 GMT

Below I am reposting DGG's warning to me that they placed on my talk page:

WARNING

The attempt to delete this article for the reasons given is directly contrary to the cooperative principles of wikipedia. (I pass no judgment on any of the articles themselves--I am an ingnoramus on the subject) But to do so as a combination of revenge and experiment is interfering with the operation of AfD & other processes of the encyclopedia, and could well be considered reason for a block. I hope you will realize your error, and apologize on the relevant talk page, and at the afd. The correct action there is to ask to withdraw the request for deletion. DGG 14:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is my reply that I posted on their talk page:

If you are ignorant of the subject as you seemed to have indicated on my talk page, don't let that cause you to have any doubts about issuing me a warning of being blocked. What say we leave the warnings to somebody a little more familiar with the subject?

The operation of Afd as you alluded to, is supposed to serve the goal, not be the goal. We may disagree on what the goal is, as do Wikipedia's deletionists and inclusionists. But where pray tell is this discussion supposed to be had? The vague term you used on my talk page, other processes, might just be the disagreements that are Wikipedia. So can the process interfere with itself? Perhaps with your help, it can.

I'd ask you to objectively look at the two articles and reconcile why one is toast and the remaining one still has no sources? Nanabozho 08:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My own description of what motivated me to make my AfD of the Australian Band's article that appeared on a couple of talk pages, was my attempt to illustrate to the people who are actually writing these articles, what is happening to them? The use of the words Revenge, and Block, and perhaps the call for a withdrawal by me, point out the lack of objectivity of the poster, and ironically, the difficulty they may have, cooperating with others.

When we look at all the discussion in defense of the Australian Misery, we have to wonder where all that sentiment was when the Minneapolis band was being considered? Generally I see the two bands as interchangeable, but the AfD's provided opposite outcomes.

Hesperian Misery

Nanabozho — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:48:09 GMT

Here I am reposting what Hesperian recently wrote on my talk page:

"Are you aware of our WPOINT policy? You most probably are; it is well-known because too many Wikipedians make a sport of accusing other Wikipedians of violating it. I prefer not to bandy it about myself, but your nomination of Misery (Australian band) is a textbook case. Just because you're pissed off that your pet article was deleted, you're going to piss away the valuable time of other contributors. To prove what? Will it bring your article back? Will it improve the encyclopaedia? Will gnawing this bone help you sleep at night? Hesperian 11:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)"

Here is my reply on their talk page:

Have you looked at the article for the Australian band recently? You didn't add sources, Ziggy didn't add sources, I didn't add them, no one did. But we are protecting the article why again? So easy to destroy, and so hard to create.

If you want a reason for the AfD, how about to promote a better understanding between contributors - creators of information, and deletionist like Ziggy? But did that happen? Deleting the one article helps the encyclopedia as much as deleting the other.

See this link: http://www.punknews.org/review/4657 See your quote: "Verifiable by recourse to an independent third party source, which is considered reliable and reputable within the Australian heavy metal music subculture... That's all the notability guideline requires."

Are we going to be leaving a message for Ziggy too? Nanabozho 07:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So we have Hesperian and I not writing an encyclopedia, but doing the above instead. So it's not that we have to be a writer to write Wikipedia, we have to be a debater. Fine. We are learning about our new world.

And an afterthought, I am sleeping fine with or without the Misery article, and it's really not my pet article. I didn't write it, I only tried to protect it. As I have disclosed, my distant cousin is in the band.

Focusing on Misery the band

Nanabozho — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:21:52 GMT

Perhaps part of the insight I gained from the Misery (band) discussion is how easily people lose focus around here. Yes I have a website with the domain name IHateWikipedia.com. (Which by the way is for sale. Bidding starts at $50,000.) But is that fact supposed to determine the fate of Misery band article? No, most would agree it shouldn't. One voter on the Afd page for the Australian band even redacted their entry after looking at my sites.

Here's a link to support the Minneapolis bands inclusion in Wikipedia:

http://www.punknews.org/review/4657

Here's a link that was used by the one who apparently swayed the debate to include the Australian bands inclusion in Wikipedia:

http://www.ausmetal.net.au/band.m?action=view&id=14

Do we see a difference? Can we find a hair to split in such a way as to allow one band in and the other out?

This is Wikipedia. This is it, unless some people change it. Wikipedia belongs to those that show up.

Also we have this from Wikipedia:

"Misery formed and provided a nucleus for what was has become an internationally envied crust punk scene in Minneapolis. Taking their influence from UK bands like Discharge and Amebix, Misery blended dark and heavy hardcore with an anti-authority political stand that was very influential on the future development of the genre."

For the deletionists to be consistent in my book, now they have to go and look at purging the above. Is it sourced? Did Misery really do this, or did some insider puff up the band? I admit the above doesn't have the weight of a complete article, but the question of the dividing line of article/no article, can be looked at. Wikipedia is supposed to provide information that people use in my opinion, but I think that those in charge of it should have the attribute of being consistent in what they do.

WARNING Misery

Nanabozho — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 03:42:41 GMT

Real life has interfered with my keeping up with the Misery (band) situation. It seems the Australian band Misery lives on at Wikipedia, while the Minneapolis one is still dead and buried.

Here are some comments from my talk page that resulting from my nomination of Australian band article:

Are you aware of our PMisery (Australian band) is a textbook case. Just because you're pissed off that your pet article was deleted, you're going to piss away the valuable time of other contributors. To prove what? Will it bring your article back? Will it improve the encyclopaedia? Will gnawing this bone help you sleep at night? Hesperian 11:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WARNING

The attempt to delete this article for the reasons given is directly contrary to the cooperative principles of wikipedia. (I pass no judgment on any of the articles themselves--I am an ingnoramus on the subject) But to do so as a combination of revenge and experiment is interfering with the operation of AfD & other processes of the encyclopedia, and could well be considered reason for a block. I hope you will realize your error, and apologize on the relevant talk page, and at the afd. The correct action there is to ask to withdraw the request for deletion. Nanabozho 07:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC) (End of stuff from my talk page.)

I'd say we saw a rally to Giggy's defense here, and the well known references to policy. Quite predictable. I'll be posting more in the coming days with my replies to Hesperian and DGG. And as always, thank you for editing Wikipedia.

Here's the discussion on the Afd page:

Articles_for_deletion/Misery_(Australian_band)

Hanging a few innocent men

Nanabozho — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:45:56 GMT

"But if even a small number of useful articles are being deleted in the name of keeping Wikipedia clean, isn't that like allowing a few innocent men to hang in favor of a lower crime rate?" - David Sarno

My off the cuff answer is no, we aren't actually hanging people, just booting them off of Wikipedia. Their articles can even at a later date, get back on Wikipedia. I do like the quote though.

Sarno writes a good article about deletionists and inclusionists, which I found while reading Lih's blog. He and Keli Martin are endorsed by me, as being worth listening to.

Some of Sarno's article covers the Mzoli's Meats situation. Once again I am happy to see Wales participating. I think other CEO type people from all types of businesses and non-profits should learn from him. It's easy to be cautious and above it all. It's more difficult to engage others that don't have your seniority, but do do the work that makes an entity successful. I think that wikis will be used by more businesses and governments, and that people will be writing things in the future such as: This is how Jimmy Wales handled this similar situation at Wikipedia.

Unending Misery

Nanabozho — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:51:42 GMT

Here's my recent note to the identifiable writers of the Misery (Australian band) article:

I have nominated the article, Misery (Australian band) for deletion from Wikipedia. You can access the process by visiting the article. I have done this not because I am deletionist or a senior writer for Wikipedia, or because I believe in destroying your work, as some do at Wikipedia.

I am doing it for a variety of reasons: To learn how the deletion process works. As a reaction to the recent deletion of the Misery (band) article. (Based in Minneapolis, MN., US.) I admit this difficult to defend reason but offer up my wish to learn about the internal problems of Wikipedia by responding to the Minneapolis band's deletion by attempting to delete the Australian band. As an attempt to review Wikipedia's deletion policy as it relates to alternative and all bands.

I am blogging on this situation. The blog is accessible through my user page.

Thank you for editing Wikipedia.

The saga continues. For those not up to date on it, Giggy, the nominator of the deletion of the Misery (band) article, who appears to be from Australia, is now perhaps pondering the counter attack from Minneapolis. Perhaps it will turn out to be a case of Mutually Assured Destruction, a subject I learned about somewhere on the path to my college degree. I have posted a number of times recently on the subject and wont repeat most of my arguments here.

Call this inside journalism if you will, where anyone with a blog can claim to be a journalist, and defend their actions as some sort of public service. I am not nominating the article for deletion for any negative reason. I'd like to see a change at Wikipedia concerning deletions, but am just one person with an opinion that is shared by an apparent minority.

Giggy has a new user name, Dihydrogen Monoxide.

See the article: Article
See the debate: Debate

"Australia is a dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica" Unknown author, found on Wikipedia.

Clowning around

Nanabozho — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:12:30 GMT

Kelly Martin writes recently: "So, in the first place we have the Arbitration Committee proposing to put the community ahead of content, and in this latter matter we have the community putting its process machine ahead of content. People, wake up. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Nothing is supposed to come ahead of content. This shouldn't even require a whole lot of thought. And yet I, and others, keep having to repeat this over and over again. What is wrong with you people?" Clowning around

"I will add a level to her statement and write that, Nothing is supposed to come ahead of site traffic. Its mission is content delivery. I'll admit that some of these discussions Martin refers to are had by people who believe they are doing just that, and that their point is that Wikipedia needs quality content.

The Wikimedia Foundation article discussion

Nanabozho — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:54:33 GMT

There's an interesting discussion going on at the Wikimedia Foundation page, about who founded Wikipedia? Here's my recent entry there:

I'm with Wales here, not because I understand all your arguments, but because an employee can't found a for-profit business, which is what Wikipedia was before it was Wikimedia. I am an accountant, and strongly believe that an entity must be something (Am I sounding like Rand here?). Wikipedia was a for-profit before it was Wikimedia. There aren't any mushy definitions of something other than a for-profit or a non-profit. Wikipedia was owned by Wales (perhaps with Bomis), and not Sanger as I understand it. If Sanger had negotiated a future equity stake in Wikipedia, he could have been the founder, but I haven't heard that he did. Sticking to the facts and possibilities arising from those facts, Sanger can't be the co-founder in my opinion.

As far as relying on sources, that policy while part of Wikipedia, fails the article. Someone writing for MSNBC or whoever, that doesn't understand that an employee can't found a for-profit company, that an entity must be either for or non profit, and who hasn't spent a lot of time with the issue, isn't worth citing.

Someone above had mentioned something about implies a business. If it wasn't a business, then what for goodness sakes was it? Up until the day it got Florida's non-profit status, it was a for-profit. I think it's relevant that when the time came to give stuff (domain names, etc.) to the just born Wikimedia, it was Wales doing it, while Sanger was doing whatever Wikipedia says he was doing that day. (end of comment)

Have a look at the complete discussion. (Criticism) I don't want to quote anyone, though the material is open and transparent. I have come take Wales side for the most part. It's partly to do with my dealings with a lot of new businesses and non-profits as a CPA. It's my opinion that the IRS gives no quarter on the issue. I read their rules to say that if you aren't a recognized non-profit (with a letter from them saying so) you are a for-profit. To be honest, many small entities fly under the radar, for example youth booster clubs. But Wikipedia was too big to do that and I suspect looked too much like a business.

You'll also read at the discussion about intangibles. Wikipedia, which is really a part of Wikimedia, is mostly intangible. The value of its servers is dwarfed by the parts of Wikimedia that accountants have a hard time valuing. I'd guess Wikimedia is worth a billion dollars while it's servers are valued at around a million. The difference between these two numbers are called intangibles, plus there's a little cash laying around. So Wikimedia is much more than some hardware. Wales does make a comment to the discussion, and feel I should disclose that I am not a sock puppet of Jimbo Wales nor has he ever contacted me, and most importantly, his lawyers have never contacted me.

I think there's value in watching this article along with the Criticism of Wikipedia article. Wikipedia looking at itself, with noobs, veterans, and even the founder weighing in. I think we will see more of this type of thing. One example would be a governmental Wiki. Perhaps about a town with council people and citizens contributing. Wikipedia has a form of communication that most aren't familiar with. No emails, but with the ability to contact anyone who is active. Plus its openness slants things towards civility.

Misery (band) article - Dead, buried, with a stake driven through its heart

Nanabozho — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:50:40 GMT

Here's the latest and probably last exchange with Giggy (Dihydrogen Monoxide). I can see this approach isn't going to work. I'd like to mention that the often claimed transparency of Wikipedia doesn't necessarily apply to specific editors. The question, why did you nominate this article for deletion, isn't being answered here. Transparency is not always an attribute of its editors. And this isn't a pick on Giggy post. They are probably average and typical, and receive all kinds of stuff on their talk pages. There are probably valid reasons that Giggy responds as they do.

I write on Giggy's talk page:
I noticed you recently added the WikiProject Alternative Music userbox to your page. I had a look at the goals of that WikiProject. "To improve Wikipedia's coverage of alternative music, by creating and improving articles related to the subject." So how does that relate to your nomination of this article for deletion? And thank you for not answering my last question which was, what motivated you to nominate the article? September 12th

Giggy writes on my talk page:
The goals should read "To improve Wikipedia's coverage of NOTABLE alternative music, by creating and improving articles related to the subject." Misery isn't notable. Would you like me to again explain why this is so?

WikiProject: Alternative music

Nanabozho — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:20:08 GMT

"The goals of this WikiProject are:

To improve Wikipedia's coverage of alternative music, by creating and improving articles related to the subject. "

Or failing that, to delete articles. I had a look at this page when I noticed Giggy (Misery on Wikipedia, and we can sleep well at night, and the world can now have more time to read about their favorite professional wrestler or porn star. (Warning - clicking on the porn star link brings you to a Wikipedia article listing female porn stars. Please do not click on it if you are under 18.)

Devolving Power and Wikipedia

Nanabozho — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:31:36 GMT

Recently, Kelly Martin wrote about, "Devolving Power", as it applies to Wikipedia (WP) admins:

"...the fact that most editors cannot retrieve deleted articles, even when those articles have been deleted for being "nonnotable". Right now, deletion on Wikipedia is used for two totally different purposes: one is to remove articles deemed "unworthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia", and the other is to remove content which is legally, morally, or ethically problematic. The problem with using the same mechanism for both is that the first leaves too few people with the ability to see the "unworthy" article, while the second leaves the dangerous content where too many can see it -- any of 1300+ admins..." Power

I think she's right about using the same mechanism for both. We have two completely different situations here. WP should branch and approach each problem without regard to the existing common solution. I see an opportunity here: Not-Notable.com. I've written that whatever WP decides to not be for purity reasons, someone else will do, and that's the nature of competition. Some articles about Wikipedia should be headlined, "Wikipedia takes the high road, capitalists to fill the gap."

This subject relates to the deletion of the Misery (band) article issue of my recent blogs. I was concerned about where the disappeared article was? Answers.com, the WP mirror site, has it up, and I've copied it. I have the copy in case I decide to re-post it. The reason I didn't obtain a copy earlier is that my interest grew as the discussion went on. That, and real life takes up too much time. See a reproduction of the article here: Misery

More Misery

Nanabozho — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:14:06 GMT

Here's the answer to my prior entry on KrakatoaKatia's talk page:

"Hello - thanks for the message. Since you're unhappy with the AFD result, you should open a discussion at WP:BAND. The discovery that the subject of the article was changed in April 2007 from a New York band called Misery to a Minneapolis band called Misery didn't help much either.

If you do decide to go to DRV, I'll be happy to lay out the full reasoning behind my position and an answer to each of your questions. Thanks again. - KrakatoaKatie 07:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)"

Here I am being taught about the Wikipedia phrase, rough consensus. In this case it seems to mean, I count what I want, because it isn't a consensus, only something like a consensus. The issue of a lack of sources perhaps does calls for a deletion, but that's just the critics having their way. The creator(s) of this article, which was probably accurate, has had their work undone. There are the creators and the destroyers in this world, and with this article, the destroyers had their way. I think Wikipedia is evolving to less use of sources. Much of it is unsourced already, and it works. The source standard, is in my opinion often just a tool of the destroyers. To source, is to go against the often repeated meaning of "Wiki", which is quick. The issue of not meeting WP standards for bands, is to me about the counter productive use of the standards. These and all standards, should support the goal of Wikipedia. That being traffic, as opposed to irrelevancy.

Below I am replying on KrakatoaKatie's talk page to her above:

I've got both you and Giggy not answering my questions, and me learning that you don't care to. You remarked on my user page that the count was 5 for deletion and 2 against. If Giggy (who didn't leave, and only had a name change) had a point with their nomination, and was objective, you'd think they'd not vote. So if you were counting them in your 5, that makes it 4. You counted the 2 maybes as in favor of deletion. If one was cautious, they wouldn't count a maybe as a for. It seems you're speaking for the 2 maybes to make your case, and that's not objective. Since we can't speak for Giggy, and we can only surmise that they wouldn't vote as a way to prove their objectivity, (in fact, they did not formally vote) that vote is not counted either. It's 2 to 2, the motion fails. Yes, I realize there may have been one other vote, but that one wasn't formalized and didn't say "Delete", but rather said "comment", and again, we are not speaking for them. And since you did not not formally vote, perhaps concerned about your objectivity, I can't see where you get the 5 in favor, which is really 4, which is really 2. When Wales said be bold, I don't think he meant this.

Now there's the, "this article used to be about the New York not the Minneapolis band called Misery issue." Why does it matter? The article improved once this was discovered, didn't it? Since I can't find the WP article any more, I can't really see a point here. Is it that, the band from Minneapolis that I can find on the internet was the subject your article, and that the band from New York that I can't find, was for awhile, but that got fixed? Nanabozho 02:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want help out here, do what you can and keep me informed. If you can retrieve the article using your special skills, I'd like a copy of it in case I decide to attempt to put it back up. If you haven't read my other comments on this, one of the band members is my distant cousin, who I've never met, and on whose behalf I am not acting.

Misery (band) article is toast

Nanabozho — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:59:17 GMT

Here's my contribution to User talk:KrakatoaKatie's talk page who I think ruled for deletion of the article on Misery the band:

It appears to me that you decided to terminate this article as the judge, but I'm no expert on WP, so disregard the following if I'm wrong. What was accomplished by this deletion? Looking at the big picture, was WP improved by what you did? What problem was solved?

Where is this Giggy that nominated this article? They seem to be missing and their page blanked. As far as I know this person never answered my question of what motivated them to nominate it for deletion? The consensus you mentioned has a good chance of being nonsense. Giggy's vote doesn't count, so you have 2 deletes, 2 maybes, and 2 keeps. And what do these 2 deleters care about the article anyway? Some people don't feel a need to delete other people's work that is valuable and serves a useful purpose.

There are rules of notability that were referenced in the discussion of this. But those rules did not serve WP well is this case. WP has given up this traffic, to prove what? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misery_%28band%29

Giggy who nominated the article for deletion, did the all too often seen on Wikipedia, I'm out of here, I am blanking my stuff, you can't talk to me, move. How's that as an example of credibility? What a celebration of their work? So well planned, they have a noob like me taking shots at them. Good luck Giggy. Don't let them get you.

Update: It turns out Giggy has not quit Wikipedia and was only going through a name change. I retract what I said about them above. They still haven't answered the question of why they nominated the article for deletion?

Wikipedia: Important enough to whitewash

Nanabozho — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:47:36 GMT

The apparent endorsement in the title of Jeremy Wagstaff's article reminds me of one of my own made up slogans. Wagstaff like myself generally sees positive things for Wikipedia (WP) despite the recent WikiScanner episode. The best part is where he writes: "The truth is that Wikipedia has come of age. Wikipedia is now important enough for ExxonMobil, The Church of Scientology, the U.S. Defense Department and the Australian government to spend time and effort trying to get their version of events across. If it was so irrelevant or unreliable, why would these people bother?" Wagstaff

My comments: We still have to keep in mind that most "proof" to date only shows that "someone" at these large entities did some editing. I like to generalize but it may very well be low level people doing the edits. Still, many of these entities are now examining their WP policies, and probably will even put someone in charge of dealing with their article. Can the same be said of Google? No, Exxon doesn't give a darn about Google because it can't effect it. Because Exxon might effect WP, Exxon cares about WP. The lack of the ability to interact, in this case is important.

Wagstaff also writes: "Of course, coming of age isn't always a good thing. A recent conference on Wikipedia in Taiwan highlighted how Wikipedia is no longer an anarchic, free-for-all, but has somehow miraculously produced a golden egg."

I wrote about Wikipedia the Golden Egg back in June. The goose is in my opinion is the free flow of information. Perhaps someone at WP is reading my blog? I'd disagree with Wagstaff here because I see what he's describing, "anarchic, free-for-all" as close to the free flow of information. Perhaps it's a matter of degrees. The "somehow" is what free markets do. It's not understood by most, just as libertarians are not well understood.

Trustworthiness Tool

Nanabozho — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:26:47 GMT

From: Slashdot: "Researchers at UCSC developed a tool that measures the trustworthiness of each Wikipedia page. Roughly speaking, the algorithm analyzes the entire 7-year user-editing-history and utilizes the longevity of the content to learn which contributors are the most reliable: If your contribution lasts, you gain 'reputation,' whereas if it's edited out, your reputation falls." Trustworthiness

This is good for Wikipedia. Another case of its evolving into a source. Seamless integration will be needed. Wikipedia itself might be able to add it, and if it doesn't, would they concede some value to someone else? For instance, a Firefox add-on made by a for profit entity. Wikipedia tracks your edits and it's interesting to ponder the possibilities, not all of them good. What can be learned about a person from their edits? I'd also be interested in my own Trustworthiness score. What other types of scores can we think of? Perhaps how often they vote on articles for deletion?