Comments on: A Working Knowledge of Wikipedia http://andrewmcafee.org/2007/07/a_working_knowledge_of_wikipedia/ The Business Impact of IT Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:54:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Swing Trading http://andrewmcafee.org/2007/07/a_working_knowledge_of_wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-20190 Swing Trading Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:54:29 +0000 #comment-20190 Type your comment here.Nice one. I have stumbled and twittered this for my friends. Others no doubt will like it like I did. Type your comment here.Nice one. I have stumbled and twittered this for my friends. Others no doubt will like it like I did.

]]> By: Swing Trading http://andrewmcafee.org/2007/07/a_working_knowledge_of_wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-18960 Swing Trading Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:54:29 +0000 #comment-18960 Type your comment here.Nice one. I have stumbled and twittered this for my friends. Others no doubt will like it like I did. Type your comment here.Nice one. I have stumbled and twittered this for my friends. Others no doubt will like it like I did.

]]> By: Matthew http://andrewmcafee.org/2007/07/a_working_knowledge_of_wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-3299 Matthew Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:36 +0000 #comment-3299 having seen that article(enterprise 2.0) in its infancy i too believe that it was a bit incoherent and vague, therefore a call for revision was in order rather than a call for deletion as the case rightly indicates that a topic having half a million hits should be covered on wikipedia. I guess the people worked on the principles of a 'weak delete' to solve the problem because the article is in a better shape now with a somewhat concise defination. having seen that article(enterprise 2.0) in its infancy i too believe that it was a bit incoherent and vague, therefore a call for revision was in order rather than a call for deletion as the case rightly indicates that a topic having half a million hits should be covered on wikipedia. I guess the people worked on the principles of a ‘weak delete’ to solve the problem because the article is in a better shape now with a somewhat concise defination.

]]> By: Howard White http://andrewmcafee.org/2007/07/a_working_knowledge_of_wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-3298 Howard White Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:58:55 +0000 #comment-3298 i must say that the article by sean silverthorne is one of the most informative and insightful nugget of information that i have come across regarding the internal working of wikipedia. Although after reading it i have a feeling that this site is in danger of falling prey to the prejudices of a few volunteers that are managing it. The exclusionists, as rightly pointed out by the author are really putting in danger the whole concept of a wiki where an idea is floated and is refined by people who are interested, or are a party to that information. If the idea is blocked out at its very birth how is it possible for all the parties involved to find out what is indeed the truth? However, being the optimist that i am, i feel that the the stringent guidelines and active support of the online community will enable wikipedia to retain its status as the primary source of information on the internet. @mike i disagree with you when you say that it may become unreliable in the coming years. As long as people take interest in wikipedia and as long as it keeps on getting the traffic it gets, people will keep on checking the articles that they are interested/authority in and this interest will make sure that the articles listed are as authentic as it can be on the internet. @Article Database Admin As long as people like me keep on getting the info that we want free of cost from wikipedia we would keep on donating money(fraction of the cost of information and the price of hassle) and i do not think that is a very bad business model, maybe u have not noticed that it is an 'org' which means that it is doing something for the betterment of mankind and as long is it is a non-profit organization (which i hope it is) people wont have any qualms about donating anyway. i must say that the article by sean silverthorne is one of the most informative and insightful nugget of information that i have come across regarding the internal working of wikipedia. Although after reading it i have a feeling that this site is in danger of falling prey to the prejudices of a few volunteers that are managing it. The exclusionists, as rightly pointed out by the author are really putting in danger the whole concept of a wiki where an idea is floated and is refined by people who are interested, or are a party to that information. If the idea is blocked out at its very birth how is it possible for all the parties involved to find out what is indeed the truth? However, being the optimist that i am, i feel that the the stringent guidelines and active support of the online community will enable wikipedia to retain its status as the primary source of information on the internet.

@mike
i disagree with you when you say that it may become unreliable in the coming years. As long as people take interest in wikipedia and as long as it keeps on getting the traffic it gets, people will keep on checking the articles that they are interested/authority in and this interest will make sure that the articles listed are as authentic as it can be on the internet.

@Article Database Admin
As long as people like me keep on getting the info that we want free of cost from wikipedia we would keep on donating money(fraction of the cost of information and the price of hassle) and i do not think that is a very bad business model, maybe u have not noticed that it is an ‘org’ which means that it is doing something for the betterment of mankind and as long is it is a non-profit organization (which i hope it is) people wont have any qualms about donating anyway.

]]> By: jane http://andrewmcafee.org/2007/07/a_working_knowledge_of_wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-3297 jane Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:32:18 +0000 #comment-3297 Wikipedia is the best source till date for info hunt and if somehow they get support from big companies it will run without any hassles Wikipedia is the best source till date for info hunt and if somehow they get support from big companies it will run without any hassles

]]> By: Article Database Admin http://andrewmcafee.org/2007/07/a_working_knowledge_of_wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-3296 Article Database Admin Tue, 01 Apr 2008 08:55:51 +0000 #comment-3296 Wikipedia\'s business model is bad - it has more than 100 servers and if donations stop somehow it would have lots of losses Wikipedia\’s business model is bad – it has more than 100 servers and if donations stop somehow it would have lots of losses

]]> By: Ferdinand Juric http://andrewmcafee.org/2007/07/a_working_knowledge_of_wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-3295 Ferdinand Juric Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:08:50 +0000 #comment-3295 I have to agree with you Mike. Recently I had to do some essay about some croatian writer and rely solely on wikipedia. When my professor read this paper, he found 3 errors in biography. I have to agree with you Mike. Recently I had to do some essay about some croatian writer and rely solely on wikipedia. When my professor read this paper, he found 3 errors in biography.

]]> By: Mike Ligalig http://andrewmcafee.org/2007/07/a_working_knowledge_of_wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-3294 Mike Ligalig Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:24:42 +0000 #comment-3294 I have a strong feeling that Wikipedia may one day become unreliable. Wikipedia doesn't have a battalion of editors and net police who would keep tracking every deletion or editing a user puts in. One day the world may wake up and realize that it's no longer intellectually healthy to run to Wikipedia for info hunt. I have a strong feeling that Wikipedia may one day become unreliable. Wikipedia doesn’t have a battalion of editors and net police who would keep tracking every deletion or editing a user puts in. One day the world may wake up and realize that it’s no longer intellectually healthy to run to Wikipedia for info hunt.

]]> By: Sheri M http://andrewmcafee.org/2007/07/a_working_knowledge_of_wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-3293 Sheri M Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:32:25 +0000 #comment-3293 "Enterprise 2.0" as a standalone page is again MIA from Wikipedia - hmmm. Thanks for a fascinating series of articles. Will be watching for more! “Enterprise 2.0″ as a standalone page is again MIA from Wikipedia – hmmm. Thanks for a fascinating series of articles. Will be watching for more!

]]> By: Tom http://andrewmcafee.org/2007/07/a_working_knowledge_of_wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-3292 Tom Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:18:41 +0000 #comment-3292 You now rank 3rd for "Enterprise 2.0" in Google. There are 3 references to you on the Wikipedia Enterprise Social Software article but no backlilnks. You should sumit changes to the wikipedia page and add backlinks if you want to increase your search engine rankings. You now rank 3rd for “Enterprise 2.0″ in Google. There are 3 references to you on the Wikipedia Enterprise Social Software article but no backlilnks. You should sumit changes to the wikipedia page and add backlinks if you want to increase your search engine rankings.

]]>