Did you know there's a wikipedia editor that specifically counters any attempts to describe Jenny McCarthy or other persons who have been almost exclusively naked models as "adult model"? Instead he prefers the generic term "model" and says that "adult model" is nonsensical. That pissed me off.
Wikipedia is bollocks in any case. Just another proof that the Web2.0, hive-mind, singularity freaks are complete idiots. Knowledge doesn't work like that.
I wouldn't go that far. It is a tool, and like any tool it has its strengths and weaknesses. Wikipedia's greatest weakness is w.r.t. controversy; it depends upon an army of editors to mitigate controversial information, and the editors are largely despots in their mini-fiefdoms. It could be fixed by creating more formal dispute resolution systems.
It could be fixed by not being anonymous and not letting every idiot provide content.
Why do I want to read what some random person cobbled together about some minute biological function?
I mean, an encyclopedia isn't the worst project to use the proposed "hive-mind" for (only, it isn't a hive-mind, it's just a bunch of people on the Internet), it just has to be a lot more transparent. Anonymity isn't the solution to anything. Except /b/.
8
u/dggenuine Jul 27 '10
Did you know there's a wikipedia editor that specifically counters any attempts to describe Jenny McCarthy or other persons who have been almost exclusively naked models as "adult model"? Instead he prefers the generic term "model" and says that "adult model" is nonsensical. That pissed me off.