Comments on: Why I use Wikipedia to follow major news events like the Samoa earthquake and tsunami http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-i-use-wikipedia-to-follow-major-news-events-like-the-samoa-earthquake-and-tsunami Rex Hammock's Blog Sun, 15 Jan 2012 04:37:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: kmartin http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010/comment-page-1#comment-353680 kmartin Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:11:12 +0000 http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010#comment-353680 Wikipedia does a good job covering natural disasters. This is because there's generally nobody out there rooting for the tsunami, so there's not going to be an war over whether it was "great" or "terrible" that 1500 people (or however many it is in any given situation) died.<br><br>The same is not true of most of the articles on Wikipedia. For most news events there are going to be disparate interpretations of events that involve deeply held political views, and whenever that happens Wikipedia is anything but a useful resource; instead, it turns into a shouting match between combatants.<br><br>Also, please note that the Wikimedia Foundation does not consider the editors of Wikipedia to be "volunteers". They are, in fact, customers, and treated as such. Jimmy will sometimes claim that they're "volunteers" in order to convince people to donate money, but internally the Foundation treats them as, at best, annoyances.<br><br>Liquid threads have been "coming" on Wikipedia for four years. Don't hold your breath on that. Wikipedia does a good job covering natural disasters. This is because there's generally nobody out there rooting for the tsunami, so there's not going to be an war over whether it was “great” or “terrible” that 1500 people (or however many it is in any given situation) died.

The same is not true of most of the articles on Wikipedia. For most news events there are going to be disparate interpretations of events that involve deeply held political views, and whenever that happens Wikipedia is anything but a useful resource; instead, it turns into a shouting match between combatants.

Also, please note that the Wikimedia Foundation does not consider the editors of Wikipedia to be “volunteers”. They are, in fact, customers, and treated as such. Jimmy will sometimes claim that they're “volunteers” in order to convince people to donate money, but internally the Foundation treats them as, at best, annoyances.

Liquid threads have been “coming” on Wikipedia for four years. Don't hold your breath on that.

]]> By: Rex Hammock http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010/comment-page-1#comment-353684 Rex Hammock Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:07:55 +0000 http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010#comment-353684 Perhaps if you weren't commenting annonymously, I could take you more seriously. And, first warning, this is my blog: You can call me dim-witted anyplace else you like, but not here. Perhaps if you weren't commenting annonymously, I could take you more seriously. And, first warning, this is my blog: You can call me dim-witted anyplace else you like, but not here.

]]> By: Gregory Kohs http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010/comment-page-1#comment-353683 Gregory Kohs Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:46:44 +0000 http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010#comment-353683 That's a rather dim-witted response, Rex. I began as, and continue to be, a big believer in the potential that resides within the Wikipedia project. My research and experience, though, has informed me that the Wikimedia Foundation's leadership (note, not "Wikipedia") is comprised of some individuals who have demonstrated very poor governance practices. I won't go into details here, as they are readily available in the mainstream and non-traditional media, if you're willing to look for them. However, I suspect that you are unwilling to learn more about these individuals and their more disgraceful characteristics. There is a delicious irony in your using the word "cult" to describe a critic of the Wikimedia Foundation's financial and governance practices. I'm really not a kook, but you're welcome to hold that opinion of me if it comforts your worldview. I hold a director-level position within a Fortune 100 company, and I serve on the boards of two different non-profit corporations. That's a rather dim-witted response, Rex. I began as, and continue to be, a big believer in the potential that resides within the Wikipedia project. My research and experience, though, has informed me that the Wikimedia Foundation's leadership (note, not “Wikipedia”) is comprised of some individuals who have demonstrated very poor governance practices. I won't go into details here, as they are readily available in the mainstream and non-traditional media, if you're willing to look for them. However, I suspect that you are unwilling to learn more about these individuals and their more disgraceful characteristics. There is a delicious irony in your using the word “cult” to describe a critic of the Wikimedia Foundation's financial and governance practices. I'm really not a kook, but you're welcome to hold that opinion of me if it comforts your worldview. I hold a director-level position within a Fortune 100 company, and I serve on the boards of two different non-profit corporations.

]]> By: Rex Hammock http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010/comment-page-1#comment-353682 Rex Hammock Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:30:51 +0000 http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010#comment-353682 I am very aware of the anti-Wikipedia crowds. And I've written on this blog about valid reasons to criticize Wikipedia. I don't need conspiracy theorists and followers of certain cults to attempt to convince me that anything as successful as Wikipedia must be evil. I am very aware of the anti-Wikipedia crowds. And I've written on this blog about valid reasons to criticize Wikipedia. I don't need conspiracy theorists and followers of certain cults to attempt to convince me that anything as successful as Wikipedia must be evil.

]]> By: Gregory Kohs http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010/comment-page-1#comment-353681 Gregory Kohs Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:08:51 +0000 http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010#comment-353681 Before you all trip over yourselves upping your financial donations to the Wikimedia Foundation's big sham, you might wish to enlighten yourself with a few reasons why you should be cautious before donating anything to that operation.<br><br><a href="http://mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia" rel="nofollow">http://mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Dona...</a><br><br>I hope you'll read it with an open mind, then act to demand governance reforms of the Foundation before you give them another dime. Before you all trip over yourselves upping your financial donations to the Wikimedia Foundation's big sham, you might wish to enlighten yourself with a few reasons why you should be cautious before donating anything to that operation.

http://mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Dona…

I hope you'll read it with an open mind, then act to demand governance reforms of the Foundation before you give them another dime.

]]> By: kmartin http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010/comment-page-1#comment-353305 kmartin Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:11:12 +0000 http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010#comment-353305 Wikipedia does a good job covering natural disasters. This is because there's generally nobody out there rooting for the tsunami, so there's not going to be an war over whether it was "great" or "terrible" that 1500 people (or however many it is in any given situation) died.<br><br>The same is not true of most of the articles on Wikipedia. For most news events there are going to be disparate interpretations of events that involve deeply held political views, and whenever that happens Wikipedia is anything but a useful resource; instead, it turns into a shouting match between combatants.<br><br>Also, please note that the Wikimedia Foundation does not consider the editors of Wikipedia to be "volunteers". They are, in fact, customers, and treated as such. Jimmy will sometimes claim that they're "volunteers" in order to convince people to donate money, but internally the Foundation treats them as, at best, annoyances.<br><br>Liquid threads have been "coming" on Wikipedia for four years. Don't hold your breath on that. Wikipedia does a good job covering natural disasters. This is because there's generally nobody out there rooting for the tsunami, so there's not going to be an war over whether it was “great” or “terrible” that 1500 people (or however many it is in any given situation) died.

The same is not true of most of the articles on Wikipedia. For most news events there are going to be disparate interpretations of events that involve deeply held political views, and whenever that happens Wikipedia is anything but a useful resource; instead, it turns into a shouting match between combatants.

Also, please note that the Wikimedia Foundation does not consider the editors of Wikipedia to be “volunteers”. They are, in fact, customers, and treated as such. Jimmy will sometimes claim that they're “volunteers” in order to convince people to donate money, but internally the Foundation treats them as, at best, annoyances.

Liquid threads have been “coming” on Wikipedia for four years. Don't hold your breath on that.

]]> By: Gregory Kohs http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010/comment-page-1#comment-353907 Gregory Kohs Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:18:00 +0000 http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010#comment-353907 Rex, I would have figured that someone who is "very aware of anti-Wikipedia crowds" would be aware of "thekohser", as my avatar was named (a simple Google search on the name would have removed all doubt of anonymity). But, regardless, I've updated my Disqus profile to reveal myself in all my middle-aged glory. I didn't call YOU dim-witted, I labeled your RESPONSE as such. You're the one who started throwing labels on people, calling them "conspiracy theorists" and "cult followers". I think you're perfect for Wikipedia culture, Rex. Enjoy your encyclopedia. Don't worry that it only takes about $1.4 million to physically run, despite a projected budget of $10 million for 2010. Let your conscience roam free, unfettered by facts. Rex, I would have figured that someone who is “very aware of anti-Wikipedia crowds” would be aware of “thekohser”, as my avatar was named (a simple Google search on the name would have removed all doubt of anonymity). But, regardless, I’ve updated my Disqus profile to reveal myself in all my middle-aged glory. I didn’t call YOU dim-witted, I labeled your RESPONSE as such. You’re the one who started throwing labels on people, calling them “conspiracy theorists” and “cult followers”. I think you’re perfect for Wikipedia culture, Rex. Enjoy your encyclopedia. Don’t worry that it only takes about $1.4 million to physically run, despite a projected budget of $10 million for 2010. Let your conscience roam free, unfettered by facts.

]]> By: Rex Hammock http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010/comment-page-1#comment-353309 Rex Hammock Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:07:55 +0000 http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010#comment-353309 Perhaps if you weren't commenting annonymously, I could take you more seriously. And, first warning, this is my blog: You can call me dim-witted anyplace else you like, but not here. Perhaps if you weren't commenting annonymously, I could take you more seriously. And, first warning, this is my blog: You can call me dim-witted anyplace else you like, but not here.

]]> By: Gregory Kohs http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010/comment-page-1#comment-353308 Gregory Kohs Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:46:44 +0000 http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010#comment-353308 That's a rather dim-witted response, Rex. I began as, and continue to be, a big believer in the potential that resides within the Wikipedia project. My research and experience, though, has informed me that the Wikimedia Foundation's leadership (note, not "Wikipedia") is comprised of some individuals who have demonstrated very poor governance practices. I won't go into details here, as they are readily available in the mainstream and non-traditional media, if you're willing to look for them. However, I suspect that you are unwilling to learn more about these individuals and their more disgraceful characteristics. There is a delicious irony in your using the word "cult" to describe a critic of the Wikimedia Foundation's financial and governance practices. I'm really not a kook, but you're welcome to hold that opinion of me if it comforts your worldview. I hold a director-level position within a Fortune 100 company, and I serve on the boards of two different non-profit corporations. That's a rather dim-witted response, Rex. I began as, and continue to be, a big believer in the potential that resides within the Wikipedia project. My research and experience, though, has informed me that the Wikimedia Foundation's leadership (note, not “Wikipedia”) is comprised of some individuals who have demonstrated very poor governance practices. I won't go into details here, as they are readily available in the mainstream and non-traditional media, if you're willing to look for them. However, I suspect that you are unwilling to learn more about these individuals and their more disgraceful characteristics. There is a delicious irony in your using the word “cult” to describe a critic of the Wikimedia Foundation's financial and governance practices. I'm really not a kook, but you're welcome to hold that opinion of me if it comforts your worldview. I hold a director-level position within a Fortune 100 company, and I serve on the boards of two different non-profit corporations.

]]> By: Rex Hammock http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010/comment-page-1#comment-353307 Rex Hammock Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:30:51 +0000 http://www.RexBlog.com/2009/09/30/20010#comment-353307 I am very aware of the anti-Wikipedia crowds. And I've written on this blog about valid reasons to criticize Wikipedia. I don't need conspiracy theorists and followers of certain cults to attempt to convince me that anything as successful as Wikipedia must be evil. I am very aware of the anti-Wikipedia crowds. And I've written on this blog about valid reasons to criticize Wikipedia. I don't need conspiracy theorists and followers of certain cults to attempt to convince me that anything as successful as Wikipedia must be evil.

]]>