Wiki dwindling

[mahnmut]

Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages

Wikimedia says: "The purpose of the project is not participation."

One factor is that many topics already have been written about.

Another is the plethora of rules Wikipedia has adopted to bring order to its unruly universe -- particularly to reduce infighting among contributors about write-ups of controversial subjects and polarizing figures.


I'd add a third one...

Wiki is great if you want to know if the world is flat or round, or any other information on which there is a 100 per cent consensus.

But issues that are contentious are heavily censored and those who disagree with the official version are labeled with the usual tags: "Conspiracy Theorist", "Denier", "Dissident", "Anti-Semite", etc.

There is also widespread use of phrases "Respected Historians/Scientists". These are of course those who agree with the "Official version".

It is, more or less, a propaganda site.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Tigran's kingdom as depicted here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20tigranes95-66.gif

Is a bald-faced lie on the part of Armenians on Wikipedia. Armenia has always been a tiny kingdom at its greatest. It completely ignores the existence of the Hasmonean Monarchy, let alone the Seleucids. The surviving portion of the Seleucid Empire was not a part of this farcical Armenian wish for a kingdom, and Parthia was far stronger than the Armenians would like here.

And this also neglects such states as the Antigonid Monarchy and the entire existence of the Galatians. It's as egregious a lie as taking the Semai people of Malaysia and claiming all of Indochina was Malaysian.

And the Polish history articles on the dictator Pildsuki.....if they were written about such a man as Pol Pot or Pinochet, there'd be a lot more objection. In short, much of Middle Eastern history as a definite as well as other kinds of history as well is completely falsified.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Look what you've done. Again. I was talking about Poland and you ran away with Armenia. Btw his name is Pilsudski.

And, didn't I say here that the biographies of public and historical figures are what is the most controversial part of Wikipedia? I think I did.

And ultimately, you may have your own version of history, I have no problem with that. You could launch a Underlankepedia if you like.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Given that my post covered both topics, I fail to see why I should not address the Armenian aspect of things.

And no, I don't have my own version of history, I have sources that at least pretend to be academic and not Armenia-wanking exercises.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Btw I love Armenia. Don't you?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Georgia's better. It didn't try to eradicate a neighboring people like the Armenians did to the Azeris.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't select the peoples I love by their history. I prefer music, cuisine, tales, sport & other stuff to be my criteria. But if you can't help living with the books about the past, no prob. :-P

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I followed that pic back to the page on Tigranes the Great and read the discussion. It is a perfect example of why wikipedia is a fantastic resource, especially in the classroom. I teach a class on how to use wikipedia, and one of the things I look for is highly disputed pages. The simple fact of the matter is that all history is disputed (or should be at least). This Tigranes page is a classic example (I'm going to use it!) because the discussion page has heaps of talk about the validity of the sources used and the potential biases of the authors. This is something you just don't get in any other information source.

The occasional bit of vandalism, or people trying to spew propaganda is perfectly acceptable if it means it is done out in the open. Encyclopedia Britannica is just as propaganda filled (and not as factually accurate either).

I teach that wikipedia is a great FIRST stop. I advise that students glean the information, then read the discussion page, then follow up the references using google scholar.

Obviously, I'm using wikipedia in a different manner than what you guys are, for me it is a tool to teach historiography, and it's an awesome one at that (much better than the two bit text books most schools use, I had to deal with one this year that MADE UP SHIT AND PASSED IT OFF AS A PRIMARY SOURCE).

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Sheesh.

And...you teach historiography? Wow. This makes two history junkies on my f-list. You guys could spend endless pleasant evenings chatting about stuff.

/runs for popcorn/