http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/07/05/wikipedias-ken-lay-problem/ New Media researcher Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:27:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/07/05/wikipedias-ken-lay-problem/#comment-414 Sun, 09 Jul 2006 02:48:00 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/07/05/wikipedias-ken-lay-problem/#comment-414 [...] As opposed to the [[Ken Lay]] article “controversy” that Reuters initiated, Washington Post’s Frank Ahrens has a thoughtful piece on Wikipedia that is informed and often uncomfortable for Wikipedians to read. Ahrens gets how Wikipedia works, how it can be useful, and states the major conundrum. But here’s the dread fear with Wikipedia: It combines the global reach and authoritative bearing of an Internet encyclopedia with the worst elements of radicalized bloggers. You step into a blog, you know what you’re getting. But if you search an encyclopedia, it’s fair to expect something else. Actual facts, say. At its worst, Wikipedia is an active deception, a powerful piece of agitprop, not information… [...] […] As opposed to the [[Ken Lay]] article “controversy” that Reuters initiated, Washington Post’s Frank Ahrens has a thoughtful piece on Wikipedia that is informed and often uncomfortable for Wikipedians to read. Ahrens gets how Wikipedia works, how it can be useful, and states the major conundrum. But here’s the dread fear with Wikipedia: It combines the global reach and authoritative bearing of an Internet encyclopedia with the worst elements of radicalized bloggers. You step into a blog, you know what you’re getting. But if you search an encyclopedia, it’s fair to expect something else. Actual facts, say. At its worst, Wikipedia is an active deception, a powerful piece of agitprop, not information… […]

]]> http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/07/05/wikipedias-ken-lay-problem/#comment-390 Thu, 06 Jul 2006 07:12:44 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/07/05/wikipedias-ken-lay-problem/#comment-390 Or "seagull journalism" (compare "seagull management"). I emailed Reuters thanking them for the article, because it would help more people understand how things actually work on Wikipedia and therefore help the public get better value from it. And gave them my phone number if they're short of a press contact in a hurry. Or “seagull journalism” (compare “seagull management”). I emailed Reuters thanking them for the article, because it would help more people understand how things actually work on Wikipedia and therefore help the public get better value from it. And gave them my phone number if they’re short of a press contact in a hurry.

]]>