Comments on: Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages http://www.disinfo.com/2009/11/volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ alternative views, news & information—online, video and print Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:36:44 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: badhamster http://www.disinfo.com/2009/11/volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/comment-page-1/#comment-2682 badhamster Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:47:24 +0000 http://www.disinfo.com/?p=15389#comment-2682 what are you waiting for? get it up so i can eviscerate it. what are you waiting for? get it up so i can eviscerate it.

]]> By: tonyviner http://www.disinfo.com/2009/11/volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/comment-page-1/#comment-2677 tonyviner Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:31:33 +0000 http://www.disinfo.com/?p=15389#comment-2677 All the exciting work has been done? They don't even have an article up explaining the differences between the SNES and Genesis versions of the Beavis and Butthead game that was released in the 90s. All the exciting work has been done? They don't even have an article up explaining the differences between the SNES and Genesis versions of the Beavis and Butthead game that was released in the 90s.

]]> By: Word Eater http://www.disinfo.com/2009/11/volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/comment-page-1/#comment-2655 Word Eater Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:08:52 +0000 http://www.disinfo.com/?p=15389#comment-2655 This should be completely expected.<br><br>As major articles are written and every obscure topic you can think of is covered, there are only two types of editors needed: those who handle the trickle of new entries, and those who police / update existing ones.<br><br>Most of the "exciting" work has been done. Those who were there for the thrill of being in on something ground breaking are moving on to the next big deal.<br><br>The diligent workers left behind, those who take special care of the integrity of Wikipedia, may not get their names in the press, but they are the reason Wikipedia hasn't devolved into a cesspool of PR and misinformation.<br><br>Yes, there are issues with the upper management of Wikipedia and yes there are edit / revert wars and definite biases present.<br><br>But these issues are known and armed with that knowledge, you can read an article at Wikipedia as one piece of your information gathering and weight what you learn there appropriately. This should be completely expected.

As major articles are written and every obscure topic you can think of is covered, there are only two types of editors needed: those who handle the trickle of new entries, and those who police / update existing ones.

Most of the “exciting” work has been done. Those who were there for the thrill of being in on something ground breaking are moving on to the next big deal.

The diligent workers left behind, those who take special care of the integrity of Wikipedia, may not get their names in the press, but they are the reason Wikipedia hasn't devolved into a cesspool of PR and misinformation.

Yes, there are issues with the upper management of Wikipedia and yes there are edit / revert wars and definite biases present.

But these issues are known and armed with that knowledge, you can read an article at Wikipedia as one piece of your information gathering and weight what you learn there appropriately.

]]>