On 11 September 2012 10:11, Kathleen McCook <klmccook(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The link is to the NPR article and the comment below
is worth reviewing.
How can this perception typical among the NPR commentators be over-turned?
" Boe D (Dajoe) wrote:
"People: If you are knowledgable enough to find a fault in Wikipedia--Go
fix it!"
Boe, are you kidding? it's because of the hubris and tenacity of the
ignorant that we cannot fix it. we have only finite energy and time, and
the self-appointed "editors" who elect among themselves the
"administrators" (who wield the real power), will just revert any fix that
doesn't fit with their POV.
That's kind of not the case. An admin who reverts well-referenced edits as
a
POV pusher is riding for a fall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-09-10/In_theā¦
has a sane discussion of what actually did go on in the Roth business. You
can get this other kind of explanation any day of the week from the troll
boards, naturally. But the agenda there is to make WP unmanageable on any
terms.
The Roth situation was WP between a rock (celeb culture with its ohmigod
you dissed X) and a hard place (academic credibility requires that, yes,
you do require verifiable additions and don't accept argument from
authority). It would tend to illustrate that celeb power can potentially be
deployed against serious discourse. Countervailing "admin power" is always
a questionable analysis.
Charles