One of the flip-sides to the whole Wikipedia drama is that it seems to have sent a surge of traffic to ReadWriteWeb, which in turn pushed it onto Yahoo Buzz. Some of that traffic made its way back to NowSourcing as well.

I started to read some of the comments on ReadWriteWeb but to be honest I am tired of the whole issue now. I never expected the whole thing to blow up the way it did and in a mental sense, I’ve already moved on. My next article for NowSourcing will be out soon and I am busy preparing other articles for other blogs.

The bottom line is that I wanted to make a point. I made that point and then I moved on. Certain people chose to drag me back for a fight and I chose to defend myself. But now I am marching on again to new subjects and new discussions.

Onwards and upwards!

Technorati Tags RWW, wikipedia, Yahoo

Posted in Yahoo, wikipedia No Comments »

photo credit: unimatrixZxero

I am still a little taken aback at a post that I wrote a few days back and which appeared today on NowSourcing about Wikipedia.    It was about German Wikipedia’s decision to publish some of the posts into a book and sell it for $32 a pop.

I wrote the post and said basically that I didn’t think that it was ethical of Wikipedia to do this.   OK well I went a lot further than that.   I might have said that Wikipedia was “shafting the writers” but at the end of the day I still feel I was making a valid point.   As a professional writer, I have come across many people, both online and offline, who try on a daily basis to scam writers into working for free.   So you could say the Wikipedia scheme hit a nerve.

But not compared to the nerve my article hit.

As soon as the article came out, the comments on the blog post started.    No biggie there.   I answered them and moved on.    But one guy really got into his stride and the personal attacks started.   Again, no biggie.   I have a thick skin.   I’ve been verbally attacked before.    It just rolls off me now.

Brian Wallace, webmaster and owner of NowSourcing, put a link to the blog post on Twitter and it got picked up by ReadWriteWeb.    This led to more traffic - and more attention.

Then the abusive emails started.   Very abusive.     Now I’ve had some very abusive emails in my time but some of these made me stop and pause for a moment.    They basically implied that I should stop writing and have sexual relations with my mother instead.

Then the Skype phone calls started.    I got a Skype phone call from a whacko who told me that the sh*t that came out his dog’s ass has more intelligence than me.    I mean, what do you say to that?!   Thank you?   The calls kept coming in to the point that I had to put Skype on “Do Not Disturb” so they all instantly went to voicemail.

Speaking today to other writers who have criticised Wikipedia in the past, it seems that this is nothing new.   It seems that as soon as you criticise Wikipedia in any way, the big guns get rolled out and you get trampled on.    But if these flat-footed idiots had any sense, they would realise that the best way to get rid of me, and critics like me, would be to SHUT UP and wait for us to go away by ourselves.    But to come stomping in, screaming at me, threatening me, giving me verbal abuse….that makes me wonder the following :

Why is Wikipedia a taboo subject?   Why is it impossible for us to have a civilised constructive discussion like mature adults without resorting to personal vicious attacks?

Thanks to their unbelievable crassness, I am now determined to stick around and do some sniffing around to see what else I can find.   Thanks guys for the tip.

Technorati Tags wikipedia

Posted in wikipedia 5 Comments »

An article about the Prophet Muhammad in the English-language Wikipedia has become the subject of an online protest in the last few weeks because of its representations of Muhammad, taken from medieval manuscripts.

I’m all for religious tolerance and being respectful towards other people, but isn’t this a bit of an over-reaction? The pictures of Muhammad were taken from historical documents and were presented in an academic context. How are we to study and learn about Islam if we are not allowed to view the “entity” behind the religion?

read more | digg story

Technorati Tags medieval, muhammad, online, religion, web, wikipedia

Posted in Digg, Digg stories, wikipedia 7 Comments »

When I first heard about Wikiscanner in the news, my first reaction was to laugh out loud and say to myself “that’s one-nil to the underdog!”

That’s because I like and root for the underdog. I despise powerful people and companies who think that because of their position, they can flout the law, be unethical, and generally do what they like (so by that rationale, the entire Bush Administration is at the top of my shitlist along with Ann Coulter). So when I heard about how Wikiscanner had caught people falsifying their Wikipedia profiles, the ensuing fallouts instantly made my day.

At Wikiscanner, you can get a complete list of everyone who has made edits to a particular article and what edits have been made.

Here are some examples of who has been caught out by Wikiscanner so far :

# Microsoft tried to cover up the XBOX 360 failure rate.
# In the 9/11 Wikipedia article, the NRA added that “Iraq was involved in 9/11″
# Exxon Mobil edits spillages and eco-system destruction from oil spillages article.
# Scientology removes criticism and negatives article from Scientology page.
# Dog breeding association deletes whole paragraphs about fatal attacks by dogs on humans.
# Fox News removes all controversial topics against the network from the Fox News page.
# Walmart removes criticism of outsourcing work. The retailer also changes negative paragraphs of underpaid workforce.
# Someone at Reuters calls Bush “a mass murderer”.
# Coca Cola removes negative content about its effects.
# US University adds the “prestigious” adjective to its page.

Which just goes to show that what happens at Wikipedia does NOT stay in Wikipedia!

Technorati Tags edits, wiki, wikipedia, wikiscanner

Posted in Web Tools, wikipedia No Comments »

My, my, this is turning into a bad news week for Wikipedia. First we have the secret mailing list fiasco and now Wikipedia Germany is being sued by a German politician.

Katina Schubert from the Left Party (so nobody important then) is alleging that the German Wikipedia site promotes Nazism by having “too much symbolism and imagery”, especially towards the Hitler Youth.

The whole issue of Nazi symbols is a very touchy subject here in Germany (understandably). After the war, laws were passed which makes it a criminal offence to glorify the Nazi regime as well as display Nazi symbols such as the Swastika, the uniforms or anything connected to Nazism. The exception would be, for example, teachers and educational tools to teach people about the period in question - it would be OK to show the symbols in that kind of context.

So in my mind, no law has been broken because Wikipedia is merely an encyclopedia providing educational information on the Nazi era.

But Schubert is going further by claiming there is a “Nazi plot to take over Wikipedia”. So in essence, she is saying that it goes beyond merely educating people but it is now turning into outright right-wing racist propaganda, which is being hijacked by the Neo-Nazis for their own ends.

Of course it goes without saying that I don’t condone this sort of thing, if indeed it is going on, but the bottom line is that Wikipedia is a user-generated content site. If there is indeed Nazi propaganda on the site, why is no-one else editing the page and removing the false and racist information? Where’s the supervisory process at Wikipedia to have objectionable material removed?

The fact that there may be racist material on the site - and no-one is bothering to have it changed or removed - is very telling.

Technorati Tags germany, law, Nazi, right-wing, sued, wikipedia

Posted in wikipedia No Comments »

Secret Mailing List Rocks Wikipedia

To be honest, I suspected for a while that something like this was going on as I have had a few run-ins with these editors. Edits reversed, misleading information being put back on the site after I had changed it and my accounts being stopped after I questioned editorial decisions. Plus their attitude towards people trying to get a new article on Wikipedia leaves a lot to be desired. I tried to help a company some time back to appeal a Wikipedia editorial decision to deny them the chance of a Wikipedia article and I was struck by the editor’s “Holier Than Thou” attitude.

But let’s put things in perspective here. This is an online encyclopedia, not the government or Skull & Crossbones. What “power” do these editors think they wield exactly? The power to edit encyclopedia entries? Wow, hold me back Commander-in-Chief! Anyone who thinks these Wikipedia idiots have “power” seriously needs to get a life.

Then you had Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales doing his best impersonation of a Los Angeles cop (”Nothing to see here, move along!”) by telling people that they were basically over-reacting. All he was really doing was trying to shut down the furor of ordinary Wikipedia users and contributers. That guy should work for the Bush Administration - he’s very good at trying - and failing - to shut down scandals and screw-ups before they really get going. “Please lets love one another”? Is he a hippie about to hand out the peace signs and go on a march?    Why doesn’t he instead clean house and kick out these idiots who think they are in charge?

Stan Schroeder over at Mashable argues that something like this was inevitable, that power invariably falls into the hands of the few, no matter how democratic something professes to be. I agree, although that the fact that it was inevitable doesn’t make it OK.   Not in the slightest.

This is something to remember next time Wikipedia is trolling for donations. They are not as independent as they claim to be. Yes, I often reference Wikipedia for blog entries as generally Wikipedia is quite accurate. But get ready to face a shitstorm if you try to appeal editorial decisions or cross paths with someone at Wikipedia with a dictator complex.

“Let’s love one another”? Sorry Jimbo, your shadowy clique are too busy donning their robes and trying out their secret handshakes.

Technorati Tags editor, jimbo wales, mailing list, secret, wikipedia

Posted in wikipedia 2 Comments »

Wikipedia is formulating a plan to pay contributors of selected illustrations, according to a report this morning in the NYT. It’s a big move, in principle at least, away from the site’s longstanding all-volunteer content creation.

read more | digg story

Technorati Tags Digg, wikipedia

Posted in Digg stories, wikipedia No Comments »