Will: wikipedia watch

home | hauntedcastle.org | sao bento music | mobile | about

www.flickr.com

More of William C. Arter's photos

Recent Posts -> bears... -> keynotes... -> vonage wifi... -> more flickr ... -> mobile adver... ->

« metacritic | Main | cool flickr icon mosaic-ifier »

October 30, 2005

wikipedia watch @07:35 AM

First google-watch now wikipedia watch (oh, there is also a yahoo-watch)

In the wake of Joi's discussion at seminar 2 weeks ago, I thought it might be relevant to post a link to the wikipedia-watch site here, if for no other reason than it gives sort of an alternative take on wikipedia, one that is more critical, based on his version of the history of the Wikipedia Foundation and Jimmy Wales at Bomis.com, and one that comes from a potentially interesting angle in the relationship between info-generating sites like wikipedia and income-generating services like google ads.

Before people start immediately reacting negatively to this criticism and other crap, it's important to note that the article does not second what is typically the main, and I would argue, ignorant, criticism of wikipedia that since it's contributers are not professional journalists, the legitimacy and value of the information is dilluted (see joi's reaction to these accusations here). Wikipedia-watch is much more about the beginnings of wikipedia and it's tendency to be scraped by other internet bots to generate google ad revenue. clearly, it's very important to make a distinction between the legitimacy of the content on wikipedia -- the articles -- and the potential abuses that come with having a stake in a vast and potentially lucrative amount of information content on the internet.

Wikipedia watch, google watch and yahoo watch have all been created (or the domains at least registered) to Daniel Brandt. The dude is definitely a far lefty, and personally I think some of his stuff tends to slip nicely into a conspiracy theory thing, but I think it's relevant to take a look at some of his accusations more closely -- at the very least they provide for good reading.

The examples that Brandt cites of wikipedia power abuses are exclusively personal, and therefore have to be taken with a grain of salt... many have suggested his troubles with google also originate from a personal spat. (google-watch-watch.org).

My take is that Mr. Brandt probably is probably trying to stick it to wikipedia for personal reasons. The idea of Wikipedia is a wondeful idea, open democracy, etc. I love it, and believe it works on a content level. However, I do think that even open Content systems like wikipedia still have much about them that is closed - further scrutiny of the power stuctures of these open content systems is not necessarily a bad idea.

posted by will | comments (1) | get permalink

| all rights william carter |
| view cc license |

These comments were emailed to me from said Daniel Brandt:

My objection to Wikipedia began because I discovered that an anonymous admin had started an article stub on me. She had contact information for me, but I was not notified that this stub had been started. I discovered it by accident. Furthermore, it turned out that she was pursuing an agenda against me. This became clear a few
days after we began working on the article. At that point I reconsidered my position, and I decided that to let this article proceed at all on Wikipedia, amounted to a violation of my privacy.

I took it up with Jimmy Wales, and he supported his anonymous administrator. Two weeks later it is becoming clear that there is nothing I can do to get the article deleted.

Now my fate is in the hands of anonymous amateurs who not only know little about me, but are not inclined to pursue any serious research. For example, the article currently is trying to figure
out if I really was an activist at USC. This is what they report: "In interviews Brandt describes himself as having been an antiwar activist at the University of Southern California during the
Vietnam War era. He claims to have resisted the draft and to have been prosecuted for so doing."

Contrast this to the Daily Trojan, January 12, 1971: "On Dec. 4, 1970, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of a lower court and found Daniel L. Brandt, a former USC student,
innocent on charges of failing to report for physical examination and refusal to submit to induction into the Armed Forces of the United States.... Dan Brandt was the editor and creator of Prevert, a monthly student activist newspaper, and the de facto leader of the student activist movement at this university in the late '60's."

Rather amateurish reporting from the Daily Trojan, but still miles ahead of Wikipedia. Why should I have to put up with Wikipedia? Is your right to read amateurish reporting greater than my right to
privacy? Remember, a Wikipedia article on me will very likely outrank all other links that mention my name, and this will be true on all the major search engines, a few months from now when the new
ranking cycle kicks in. It will be there for the next 100 years, and everyone and anyone can come along and play anonymous editor, unless some other anonymous editor with more privileges overrules
them.

That bothers me, because anonymous editors at Wikipedia seem to feel that I have no right to shape the article, and certainly no right to get it deleted. There's no worthwhile appeal process. If I request a vote on deletion, I will easily get outvoted by a whole host of anonymous Wikipedia cultists.

I recommend that everyone read the current Forbes Magazine cover story on blogging. The same problems that this story describes with anonymous bloggers are also present at Wikipedia in the form of anonymous administrators and editors.

Are their any lawyers out there who would like to help me out on this?

Daniel Brandt
www.google-watch.org

Posted by: will at October 30, 2005 01:16 PM