Wikipedia objections (Was: Re: zImage compressed with what?)

[Joshua Zeidner]

On 2/19/08, Alex LeDonne <aledonne.listmail at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2008 12:11 AM, Alan Dayley <alandd at consultpros.com> wrote:
> > - There is great value in "experts," even true experts, writing peer
> > reviewed articles.  There are many avenues such as journals and other
> > publications for their contributions.  There is also great value in
> > allowing people with direct knowledge, though perhaps without official
> > credentials, to publish their knowledge to the world.  The
> > democratization of knowledge sharing is very important in ways we do not
> > know just as Gutenberg probably only had a imagining of the power of
> > what he created.  Wikipedia, or at least such a concept, is an important
> > part of that.
> >
>
> One project is trying to bridge the gap:
> http://www.citizendium.org/
>
> -A


  In my view Citizendiem is a flawed idea as well.  Basically, in
Citizendium a payed expert harvests all the contibutions of non-payed
casual users.  Why would I contribute to a site where a payed expert
has fiat control over the content?  I think Jimbo is shooting blanks
here.

  Honestly, people keep touting Web 2.0 collaborative communication as
the next big thing... but you have to read between the lines.  It's
being boosted by Mr. Big because Mr. Big *thinks he can make a great
deal of money at it*.  So we set up a site, "Rantr.com: Submit Your
Rant!!!"  people submit their rants.  They all suck.  The spelling is
awful and there is no factual accuracy.  There is a clear negative
side to this approach to content production.  'Web 2.0' was great
until it became big business.

  -jmz


-- 
http://www.joshuazeidner.com/