Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-23/In the news
In the news
Administrator writes SEO tips
Durova, who is an administrator, wrote an article for a search engine optimisation magazine in SEO Tips & Tactics From A Wikipedia Insider. Her article begins with an example of what happens when ignorance of the ways of Wikipedia meet the transparency in Wikipedia's archives: the ease in which biased edits from Congressional computers have been traced. Evidence can be gathered even without additional administrator tools. Durova posits eight "white hat strategies" for driving traffic to a client's site, concluding that one should "Look for approaches that reconcile your goal of sending traffic to websites with Wikipedia's goal of being an informative and reliable first stop for research". A follow-up comment agrees with her sentiments that being ethical with Wikipedia is the only way to go.
Cult of the Amateur review
Last week, the Signpost carried a review of Andrew Keen's The Cult of the Amateur (see archived story); The Plain Dealer also carried a review, albeit more sympathetic to the views of the author. The reviewer found Keen's book "scary and convincing", and he believes that the book offers food for thought for those who participate in blogosphere. His only criticisms relate to the Keen's use of anecdotes to make his arguments, and his ignorance of the role of traditional media in certain events that he blamed on the influence of bloggers.
Wikipedia editors said to lack maturity
Entitled Wikipedia - Can Teenagers Write An Encyclopedia?, the article written by Sam Vaknin in the Global Politician argued that Wikipedia's flaw lies in the inexperience of its editors, who, the article claims, are mostly under the age of 25, or "teenagers". Blissfully ignoring the possibility of under-25s attending or having attended an institution of higher learning, or the use of consensus on Wikipedia articles, the article debunks the ability of "teenagers" to satisfactorily evaluate and synthesise third-party sources and other material: "Knowledge is not comprised of lists of facts, "facts", factoids, and rumors". It asserts that knowledge cannot be democratised; instead, it must be "learned", and established through merit. Finally, the article argues for the existence of a "pernicious" feedback loop between Wikipedia, Google, MySpace and other Internet properties frequented by the younger generation, a feedback loop that apparently results in the teens of MySpace dictating Google's search results.
Other mentions in the news
Other mentions of Wikipedia in the online press include:
- Tetrapods - about the oddly-shaped wave-breaking blocks on the coast of Japan
- Websites, classic films on English study list - New South Wales, Australia, students read pages from Wikipedia as part of the English syllabus
- Old growth Chugach National Forest celebrates 100th birthday - Wikipedia cited about creation of national rainforest
Discuss this story
Wikipedia editors said to lack maturity
Sam Vaknin is the author of Wikipedia - Can Teenagers Write An Encyclopedia?. There also is a Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Vaknin. The deleted Sam Vaknin article and the Wikipedia - Can Teenagers Write An Encyclopedia article both have http://samvak.tripod.com in them. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Vaknin
Sam Vaknin's criticism need not be taken seriously. His views are not academic or scholarly; his write-ups on Wikipedia are a result of his frustration. He claims that Wikipedians decided to take revenge against him by authoring "a defamatory and slanderous article" on him. The fact is that the article was authored by an anon user (most probably himself, see the sockpuppet requests) and was deleted because of notability concerns (although Vaknin prefers to misguide others by saying that the article was removed "after repeated complaints" against slander and defamation).
The issue with the article was not any defamatory or slanderous content -- the issue was that User:Zeraeph had pointed out that an anon user was inserting biased content in favor of Vaknin and removed it. The anon called Zeraeph a "long-time Vaknin enemy", and insisted on adding biased content (in favor of Sam Vaknin) to the article.
Sam Vaknin (User:Samvak) was later found using multiple IP addresses to edit the article in his favor:
He was finally blocked and has been ranting against Wikipedia ever since. Here is a nice reply to his "Six Sins of Wikipedia": User:Ta bu shi da yu/Global Politician. 220.227.179.4 09:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder who the anon user was who made this edit... enochlau (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he's just some nobody then don't write about his review. But if you do write about it then don't link to his AfD or his "this user is blocked" user page, that just comes across as if you're out to get him. Haukur 14:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like how he had to throw in an attack on America with it. Isn't Wikipedia anti-American? Atropos 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]