Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[off topic] Wikipedia & Jimmy Wales

Expand Messages
  • Uri Even-Chen
    Hi people, I recommend reading this article (in Hebrew), and looking at the websites below: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3180710,00.html
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 7, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi people,

      I recommend reading this article (in Hebrew), and looking at the
      websites below:
      http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3180710,00.html

      http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/
      http://www.google-watch.org/

      By the way, www.google-watch.org has a Google PageRank of 6, and appears
      #17 when searching "google" on Google. The first 14 websites are
      operated by Google, so it's #3 site which is not operated by Google.

      Best Regards,

      Uri Even-Chen
      Speedy Net
      Raanana, Israel.

      E-mail: uri@...
      Phone: +972-9-7715013
      Website: www.uri.co.il
      --------------------------------------------------------
    • Uri Even-Chen
      Hi Nadav, ... Wikipedia is not free. Wikipedia is operated by people, with hierarchic ranks, who control it. Anything in the articles which doesn t fit their
      Message 2 of 14 , Dec 8, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Nadav,
        > Can you explain why you recommend reading those sites, much of which appear
        > to be the writings of a nudnik at best, or a raving lunatic at worst?
        >
        > Wikipedia's method of operation is well-known. Nothing written on it comes
        > with any promise of being correct. But, unlike much of the rest of the
        > Internet which contains falsehoods and half-truths by the millions, in
        > Wikipedia you can actually correct these falsehoods yourself. You don't
        > need to resort to "anti"-sites which cry about the falsehoods, or to
        > law-suites to force the site owner to change something.
        >
        > This guy's view of Wikipedia reminds me of SCO's view of free software.
        > They think that the fact that someone *can* put stolen copyrighted material
        > into some free software project, means that free software is inherently
        > evil, and that they don't need any proof (like showing an actual case of
        > stolen code) to win a lawsuit. Similarly, just because somebody *can*
        > put libel in wikipedia does not prove that a specific article about Mr.
        > Dan "paranoid" Brandt is in fact libel, or that Wikipedia is evil.
        >
        > These views make as much sense as charging every cook with murder, because
        > he uses knives who can be easily used to kill people.

        Wikipedia is not free. Wikipedia is operated by people, with hierarchic
        ranks, who control it. Anything in the articles which doesn't fit their
        agenda will be removed or modified, and any person whom they don't like
        (for any reason) will be banned from Wikipedia. Believe me, I know.
        Wikipedia is not objective, and not free. It reminds me the book
        "Animal Farm". Remember the sentence "All people are equal, but some
        people are more equal than others"? That's Wikipedia.

        You can't correct falsehoods in Wikipedia. Believe me, I tried. If the
        editors ("system operators") don't like what you wrote, it will be
        changed back and you will be banned. Wikipedia is a dictatorship.
        There is no way to appeal on a system operator's decision to ban you or
        change what you wrote.

        There are excellent articles in Wikipedia, in areas such as mathematics,
        science etc. But when it gets to politics or to anything else where
        there are different opinions - Wikipedia is not neutral.

        >>By the way, www.google-watch.org has a Google PageRank of 6, and appears
        >>#17 when searching "google" on Google. The first 14 websites are
        >>operated by Google, so it's #3 site which is not operated by Google.
        >
        >
        > Ok, and that says what?

        www.google-watch.org is the third most popular site about Google, which
        is not operated by Google. And that says something.

        I expect that in one or two years, www.wikipedia-watch.org will reach a
        similar popularity.

        Best Regards,

        Uri Even-Chen
        Speedy Net
        Raanana, Israel.

        E-mail: uri@...
        Phone: +972-9-7715013
        Website: www.uri.co.il
        --------------------------------------------------------
      • Uri Even-Chen
        ... I prefer not to give specific examples. I refer to Wikipedia in general and not to specific examples. But if you re interested, check the history of any
        Message 3 of 14 , Dec 8, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Shachar Shemesh wrote:
          > Care to give specific examples, so we can form an independent opinion?
          > The articles you tried to fix, as well as the username you were using,
          > would be greatly appreciated.

          I prefer not to give specific examples. I refer to Wikipedia in general
          and not to specific examples.

          But if you're interested, check the history of any article about
          politicians, or related to politics.

          Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
          > Actually one thing that is rarely edited away in wikipedia is the
          > discussion pages. Thus we generally know what those faceless system
          > operators did. We can also tell when they did it and in many cases why.

          Some of my comments were removed from discussion pages too.

          > Could you point out one such biased article? Because I've heard this
          > criticism before and every time I checked the editors' judgement seemed
          > very reasonable.

          Any politically related article in Hebrew is biased towards the points
          of view of most Israelis, comparing to Americans, Europeans or
          Palestinians. Take any politically related article in Hebrew in
          Wikipedia and compare it to other languages - you will find big
          differences in content.

          I suppose the same is also true for any language.

          Nadav Har'El wrote:
          > But the fact is that anybody (including you and me) can go to Wikipedia
          > and fix what we find wrong. If you decide to go to Wikipedia's site,
          > you can set its agenda. This is very different from other sites, like
          > http://google-watch.org itself, where I cannot modify what they say if I
          > don't like them. So perhaps google-watch.org is more "dangerous" than
          > Wikipedia?? Personally, I think neither is dangerous.

          It's not true. Not anybody can edit Wikipedia. You can edit Wikipedia
          only if there is no editor ("system operator") who doesn't like you, and
          if your username & IP address are not banned. And even then, if your
          agenda is different than other editors, it will be reverted.

          > By the way, your comment about Heirarchic ranks is wrong. There are no ranks,
          > just tens of thousands of editors (anyone can be one, you can even be
          > anonymous), and there is one layer of "system operators" who have very
          > few special privilages (among them, the privilage to delete a page, something
          > which an ordinary user cannot do). Any computer system I know of have
          > such operators, and it doesn't make every such system a "dictatorship".

          There are ranks. Not all editors have the same privileges. Some are
          allowed just to edit, some are allowed to ban other editors (system
          operators), some are allowed to give & take privileges from other system
          operators (super operators) and some are allowed to give & take
          privileges of super operators. It is hierarchic.

          > Wikipedia is not perfect, and some articles are crappy because of such
          > "edit wars" between people of opposing political views. But from that
          > to saying that Wikipedia is evil, there is a long way.

          Wikipedia is not evil. The people who operate it are evil. It's a
          hierarchic dictatorship.

          By the way, I think any person can become evil if given enough power
          upon others.

          Uri.
          --------------------------------------------------------
        • Uri Even-Chen
          By the way... A friend of mine has a name which is slightly similar to a Wikipedia operator. He tried to register to Wikipedia but was immediately banned just
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 8, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            By the way...

            A friend of mine has a name which is slightly similar to a Wikipedia
            operator. He tried to register to Wikipedia but was immediately banned
            just because of his name. If you think that's not an evil dictatorship
            then what is?

            Uri.
            --------------------------------------------------------
          • Uri Even-Chen
            OK, you asked for an example, you got it. Look at the history of ùéçä:àøéàì ùøåï from 28 May 2005. There were comments by an anonymous user
            Message 5 of 14 , Dec 8, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              OK, you asked for an example, you got it. Look at the history of
              "שיחה:אריאל שרון" from 28 May 2005. There were comments by an anonymous
              user which were deleted by the system administrators. Read the
              discussion and then read the comments that were deleted.

              http://he.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97%D7%94:%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F&action=history

              And it's just one example. There are many examples.

              Also, check why "משתמש:שי דוד" was deleted. Can you find any
              explanation? Or is the explanation deleted too?

              http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%A9:%D7%A9%D7%99_%D7%93%D7%95%D7%93

              Uri.
              --------------------------------------------------------
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.