Comments on: Ron Hovsepian’s Approval Rating is Only 64%

By: David Gerard

David Gerard — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:22:38 +0000

There’s plenty of very real problems and flaws in Wikipedia, but Merkey is just delusional. I mean, what on earth.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:19:09 +0000

Wikipedia got lots of flak for that Merkey episode. Many people are unhappy with the truth (about them) in Wikipedia, so they opportunistically use this incident to slam the messenger.

By: David Gerard

David Gerard — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:15:48 +0000

Jeff Merkey’s claims concerning Wikipedia should be taken with remarkable quantities of salt.

No-one gets to buy an article being any particular way. There are thousands of noisy and largely incorruptible editors watching closely.

That said, any given article could be FUDster-spun rubbish at any given moment. Much like the analyst-led technical press. So check those references on anything that surprises you.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:35:54 +0000

Wikipedia is only 'correct' when it says Nice Things©. See this for details.

By: twitter

twitter — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:31:37 +0000

I was unaware of the Jeff Merkey Novell connection at the time but suspected the story was a fabrication and part of a wave of FUD aimed at Wikipedia. The Novell connection solidifies my opinion of the matter. Other attacks include entrapment, public flaming and similar accusations by Fox News personality Rachel Marsden. These stories attempt to turn Wikipedia editorial policy and troll busting into something negative. People who hate freedom hate Wikipedia and truth in general. Personal smears are all they have to combat both.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:29:42 +0000

The same can be said about newspapers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

By: Ian

Ian — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:11:27 +0000

Jose_X,

I too use wikipedia before using a search engine at times. It was late last night and I didn’t exactly get my point across well. What I really meant was that people shouldn’t solely base an opinion of any subject on a wikipedia article. Sorry for the confusion.

By: Jose_X

Jose_X — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 05:21:40 +0000

I think I will try later on (maybe next week) to change the ACPI article and post why I’m changing it. I’ll see what kind of results I get.

By: Jose_X

Jose_X — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 05:20:13 +0000

>> Moreover, are you suggesting that Wikipedia entries actually translate into anything tangible in the real world?

I’ve found very good summaries of material on wikipedia when googling. Sometimes I just wikipedia instead of google.

Not everything on it is hot of course, but wikipedia is very useful. Anyone thinking otherwise is free never to use it.

If information discovery (an additional source that sometimes has the information just right) doesn’t translate to anything in the real world where you live, I’ll keep that in mind when traveling. [so where do you live, again?]

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 03:42:36 +0000

Control Wikipedia using cash.

By: Ian

Ian — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 03:03:15 +0000

Did what?

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:37:56 +0000

What if everyone did the same thing to Wikipedia?

By: Ian

Ian — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:19:28 +0000

For those in Novell who are not popular, there is always the possibility of corrupting Wikipedia

Are you suggesting that Novell should look for special protection on Wikipedia? You don’t think that’s bad? Moreover, are you suggesting that Wikipedia entries actually translate into anything tangible in the real world?