web counter Visitors since June, 2006

Monday, September 10, 2012

ON WHY WE MUST KILL WIKIPEDIA

Wikipedia, that most pretentious form of misguided and erroneous collectivism, is at it again.  Philip Roth, an author I have covered in this blog extensively, cannot correct an entry for his novel "The Human Stain."  But the ultimate insult came when editors at the notorious cesspool of collective ignorance told Roth that "he wasn't authoritative enough," and that he needed "secondary sources" in order to make the change.

Here we are... a society where the collective is more authoritative than the individual. We are massively $%* if we think we can turn around and revert to logic and reason.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html?printable=true&currentPage=all

Labels: , , ,

1 Comments:

At 2:34 PM, Blogger albertguitar.com said...

Interesting.

The section in question seems to indicate opinions, rather than fact, so I don't see what _all_ the fuss is about. What do folks think about critics who claim to know what inspires an author? I think they are disingenuous at best, douchebags at worst, and usually have some agenda.

That said,

someone once wrote something to the effect of: "[wikipedia] think that collective ignorance is smarter than individual ignorance."

Anything even _remotely_ controversial is going to have problems in wikipedia. It's a good reference for certain things, like certain science questions, but, beware! wikipedia is consensus-based information. Such information is most often colored by the editors knowledge or lack thereof, or by who yells the loudest, or how many yell.

'Facts' are absolute truths. 'Truth' is not democratic. One can select a _theory_ based on consensus, but not a _fact_.

This is why wikipedia is not allowed as a reference source in schools.

I gotta go.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home