Comments on: Does Wikipedia need to be fixed?

By: Joe Anderson

Joe Anderson — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:10:11 +0000

Hey,

Please email me a list of errors in your article so I can investigate them.

Thanks

By: Erik Schwartz

Erik Schwartz — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:45:35 +0000

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”

Eric Blair (George Orwell) – Animal Farm

By: elearnspace

elearnspace — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:04:10 +0000

Citizendium…

Citizendium Project: “citizens’ compendium of everything,” will be an experimental new wiki project that combines public participation with gentle expert guidance.” While this is causing irritation for many die-hard wikipedians, others note that th…

By: Nick Douglas

Nick Douglas — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:33:15 +0000

Mike, this is what the discussion pages are for. Leave a note about the incorrect info in the article’s discussion page and other users will make the corrections.

By: JD on EP

JD on EP — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:11:59 +0000

Wikipedia’s ok…

Wikipedia’s ok: Michael Arrington notes same of the same content problems on Wikipedia that we’ve been seeing with Flash (and Dare Obasanjo collects more). Then Mike asks “Does Wikipedia need to be fixed?” That “fixed” makes Wikipedia sound like …

By: Nick Moreau

Nick Moreau — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:51:34 +0000

As Rogers said, please, either post the errors to the talk page, or even to here. While tempers often flair with various controversial topics, I simply can’t imagine any changes to TechCrunch’s article. The talk page is barely got anything on it, there’s been so little debate. So please, consider hoping over and giving us a line or two on what to fix.

By: Dan G

Dan G — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:47:52 +0000

People often don’t realise that on Wikipedia what you write has to be “verifiable”, i.e. something that can be proved, and also back it up with a published source if challenged.

It’s like the one about scientists saying “they shouldn’t change what I write, I’m the expert”. Well, on the net, anyone can pretend to be anyone, so how do we really know you’re the expert? Instead, provide evidence for your edits (which anyone can do, it’s a great leveller).

By: Rogers Cadenhead

Rogers Cadenhead — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:54:48 +0000

If there are factual errors on the TechCrunch page, document them on the entry's talk page. Editors check those pages often on entries they care about.

By: Danny

Danny — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:15:47 +0000

This could do with a little explanation: “wikipedia community has completely intimidated me” – I’ve made a handful of changes to Wikipedia, which I guess makes me a member of the community, yet I haven’t been asked to wield a baseball bat for unsporting purposes.

Is there anything to suggest that a more closed system would be any less subject to bias? Seems to me that locking people out reduces the opportunity for inaccuracies to be corrected. I would have thought a more distributed dispute arbitration system could work a lot better than the ordination of experts.

btw, I’d recommend Aaron Swartz’s recent series on the state of Wikipedia.

By: Frans Charming

Frans Charming — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:35:22 +0000

Citizendium might not even need a big following. They can use Wikipedia’s articles and following. They can essentially just look at a wikipedia article, use it for their own site, and when ever the wikipedia article is changed decide if that change will go through in Citizendium.