When collaborative editing devolves into mob mentality it is not just the individual being abused who suffers, it is everyone who trusts in the integr...
We have been critical of Wikipedia's approach to censorship in the Middle Kingdom. In a recent piece, I lamented the loss of Wikipedia in China. The encyclopedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, reached out to us and agreed to publish our unedited exchange on the difficult nature of dealing with censorship in China.
If the censors were ever embarrassed, they certainly are no longer. With the support of Xi Jinping, they are emboldened. And we expect to see the authorities take further steps to crack down on any website, mobile app or circumvention tool that allows Chinese citizens to freely access information. Rest in peace, Wikipedia.
Mackintosh Braun, a Portland-based "electro-pop" group composed of Ian Mackintosh and Ben Braun, are causing quite the stir. And not just in Portland. The band is growing their fan base in a big way. (This girl included!)
That place where you can read newspapers and watch cat videos at no cost faces a certain and perilous end when Facebook, Twitter, or Wikipedia are free. So says Harvard law professor and former Obama administration technologist Susan Crawford.
Evidence of the strong bias against homeopathy and against an objective encyclopedic tone is evident throughout the article. I will first focus on the second sentence of the first paragraph of the article and the 6 references which purport to substantiate these claims:
If you vigilantly take into account the accuracy of the sources you use -- and in an infotainment age that monetizes ignorance, that's a big if -- then most of the information in the history of the world is available to anyone, anytime, for free on a device you can carry around in your pocket.
How do you make people CARE about your mission? This is what I do every day: I work with nonprofits to tell stories that make people care about their...
Has Jimmy Wales' marauding encyclopedic beast finally corrupted the Internet? Has Wikipedia lost all credibility, its purportedly neutral system compromised by toxic editors? Or have "skeptics" leveled the playing field?
A group of researchers and archivists approached me awhile back to explain how Wikipedia works and offered to mediate. They informed me that the problems that are occurring are not because of Wikipedia's rules and policies, but despite them.
I used to have edit rights to Wikipedia. I obtained them to correct inaccuracies in the "C.G. Jung" entry, but after a while I gave up. Why? Because anyone who registers can go in and say pretty much whatever they like -- unless it's true.
One of the Internet's most popular websites is the free online encyclopedia called Wikipedia. The site is viewed as an objective source of information...
4. Formicophilia: It's like a foot fetish, except instead of feet, it's insects crawling on your skin.
With a direct connection to Wikipedia, WikiBear is truly the world's smartest teddy bear. That is because this interactive teddy resorts to crowd-sourced knowledge for his brains.
Soon a new genre of software called collective intelligence could make Wikipedia seem primitive. Collective intelligence software will enable hundreds or even thousands of people to come together online to discuss ideas and generate new thoughts and knowledge.
Eschewing insurance in favor of joining "a nationwide network of Christians who save money by sharing each other's medical bills" may not bring on the wrath of the the IRS -- but there could be punishing bills from medical providers.