Showing posts with label encyclopedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label encyclopedia. Show all posts

Wikipedia: The New Age Porn Magazine!

“But I heard it is an encyclopedia!”.

You heard right, but that is how every Porn site, who are serious about their business masks themselves. Didn’t Jimbo tell you his Bomis.com was actually somewhat adult in content and not porn! In a typical wikipedia style I would first define what is porn, before arriving at any kind of judgement. As per dictionary.com

obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit.

:::Ramesh, you got it wrong here! It says “having little or no artistic merit” but wikipedia has immense artistic value. You should first get your perception of art right. When you search Michael Arrington on google the first link is wikipedia article on him, which tells you The Fucking incidence of his life at great length. Had it been porn our elder brother Google would not have indexed it at all. So, your perception is entirely wrong, because what is art can’t be called Porn. See, how we Wikipedian, promoted an obscure Yahoo CEO, through a high traffic page. But, you should know We never accept ads on our site.

The page you are showing, has messed all the information about him. It rather discusses things of fringe value to the reader and omits many notable facts. Is this what one should know before knowing the basic facts about him. My take on the entire article is that someone is deliberately trying to make a villain out of a hero.

:::You know, anybody can edit this Wikipedia. so, if you feel something is wrong you are welcome to edit this page. Though, you should take care, we have editors already involved there, so, you should not add anything with which they disagree. Move by consensus, otherwise we have admins who can block you. We greatly value neutral point of view.

First of all, You must know, I was searching for information about him. So, my position is Knowledge Seeker, how I can provide knowledge about something which I myself don’t know. Are all your editors too similar kind of Seekers who have become providers. Second point is How can I have consensus with people with whom I clearly disagree, and they frequently quote hyperlinked rules which they themselves keep on violating.

:::You see nobody knows anything perfectly, and for anything you don’t know you should Google. Google and Wikipedia goes hand in hand. Google always shows Wikipedia in the first position, which contains all the information that other 9 links below can provide you. So, we do a great service by consolidating all the information from every poor website that ranks below us, but we do take care that our editors write it in their own language, and they do mix their own expert knowledge in them. Your second point can be answered in this way that We also have a rule that allows us to break all the rules. So, whereas a newbie like you should observe all the rules, a veteran there is above every rule. You know most of them are admins or enjoy the protection of an admin.

In other words are you telling me that you have Cabals there, and all your articles are outcome of their bias and prejudices, which also somehow maligns the original authors you guy cite.

::: Everybody hates someone, and they get delighted to see something bad written about someone on the top page served by Google. That motivates them to contribute more to our site, and also show it to others. These people get complete security under the cover of anonymity, and with time they grow up as our admins. So, what they cannot write anywhere else, they can write here. Since, they also know something about other topics like science and philosophy, they contribute there too. In this way we have grown into such a big website. We have cabals

I think you qualify as a porn site and not as an encyclopedia. Porn too delight people and are shared with similar intent, but is a recognized social evil.

::: See you cannot come up with such claim without a reliable source. You either find a forum of your choice or get a blog. As I told you, we do not fit into the description of porn, per the dictionary definition, because we all are so artful. Our founder Jimmy Wales is hailed as a Spiritual Leader.

I have a blog and I am fully responsible for everything I write here. You too dare to sign your work. You may not entirely fit into Porn category, but you are a very close extension of what pornography is, a kind of New Age Porn.

Read This >>

Online Encyclopedias: Wikipedia Still Rules!

An encyclopedia is must for first hand information on anything we want to learn. We frequently come across various terms and concepts which we are not familiar with and then try to get some information about it.

For over a century people have relied upon Britannica Encyclopedia, which for many is still the Gold standard in this field. However, the ease of search on internet has spoilt our habit and we have sacrificed accuracy of knowledge in favor of what satisfy us fast and easily.

To fulfill this need  of fast and free content on the internet were born several online versions of encyclopedia. First one which I could trace was MSN Encarta, which though was not free, effectively, took the attention off from Britannica Encyclopedia. MSN Encarta closed completely in 2009.

First genuine attempt to create truly free encyclopedia on the web came in the form of Nupedia, which reincarnated as Wikipedia in 2001. This open source, free to read and edit encyclopedia has more or less  established itself as a good resource and despite its inherent limitations it just can’t be ignored.

However, Wikipedia has been criticized for its inaccuracies, bureaucracy , polluting the web with anonymous false facts, providing platform for criminals to publish illegal misinformation, and for what people have termed it –“The Single Most Dangerous Website on the Internet”.

To fix its inaccuracies and inherent problems with wikipedia, its co-founder Larry Sanger, started Citizendium. Citizendium aims for the articles to reach an approved status, accorded by its editorial team. They are also known for verifying the actual credentials of the editors. However, it has been learnt that it is more bureaucratic and reportedly the environment there is more uncivil than wikipedia. Some users have even complained that Sanger himself is the most abusive person there. As a result it could not grow as per expectations and with time number of users have drastically come down. It has also been learnt that it has been into financial crisis too.

If you want a very high standard of reliable content, then Scholarpedia may be the right option for you. This encyclopedia can be edited only by people with proven credentials. You shall have to apply for becoming an editor there and you would be approved to edit the topics which they consider you fit for. Given its structure, its growth is very limited and slow, and doesn’t offer you content on all kind of topics.

The most serious competitor of Wikipedia ever was and possibly is to the present day is, Google’s Knol. Although, it had been perceived as Wikipedia Killer initially, there is no immediate threat to wikipedia from this. Google has done little for this project except for allocating a server and bunch of softwares. The project suffers critically from Google’s indifferent attitude and has been frustrating enough to compel its best contributors to leave the project. Shortly few months before there were rumors about Google going to shut down this program. Despite all speculations Google’s Knol is still there, though they are not paying any attention to enforce the terms of services on users there because of alleged lack of interest and human resources from Google. As a result of which it has become spammers’ paradise.

Google Knol’s structure provided some definite edge over wikipedia and other similar sites. It has no bureaucracy and you can write alone or in team. Some of the knol members had formed Knol Publishing Guild, which promoted a value system among knol writers. To display its badge, one needed to have got approved after writing a bio knol and shown some degree of proficiency on the subject. It is all history now. After Google itself donated to Wikipedia recently, users have taken it as a sign of disinterest from the side of Google. Several knol writers have started feeling that Google is slowly killing this project. So, unless Google shows some major sign of revamping the system, it is taken as- dying a slow death.

Apart from Citizendium and Google Knol, no encyclopedia or anything like that has wikipedia like ambition. Though it is too early to write off either Knol or Citizendium, it looks less likely that they would be competing with Wikipedia in near future.

P.S.----> Google to Shut Down Knol, officially reported on 11/22/2011 01:40:00 PM.

Read This >>