The Registers ongoing attack on Wikipedia is annoying, it’s 99% wrong for a start and makes the Register look petty. If an online IT news site can’t get Wikipedia, what hope does traditional media have?
Hyperorg.com has some interesting coverage of tradtional media reaction to Wikipedia’s recent problems …
Wikipedia is obviously not the first and only instance of this type of knowing in our history. But the balance of heroic individual knowers and persistent, pseudonymous social processes is sufficiently different that the media generally have gone wrong with this story. After all, reporters are held accountable when they get something wrong, so why shouldn’t Wikipedians?
A: Because Wikipedia isn’t a newspaper and newspaper practices aren’t the only way to knowledge.
Is it all good? Nah. But it is.
3 responses so far ↓
1 Bjorn // Jan 3, 2006 at 3:38 PM
It’s old media vs new media. They do the same thing with blogs. They attack them on the surface, and behind the scenes they add RSS feeds to their content and start blog pages on their websites. They never expected the potentional for interactivity of the web would end up eating their lunch money. There’s only so much reading a person can do in the day…
2 Jackdaw // Jan 3, 2006 at 9:40 PM
Hey, I am paying you to be my single reader!!!
3 Bjorn // Jan 4, 2006 at 6:47 AM
No you’re not, I checked my bank account and it’s empty. :(
Leave a Comment