Stephen Downes

Knowledge, Learning, Community
I agree with these criticisms of Wikipedia and would argue for even wider changes. The author describes a bias against commercial platforms on the CMS page, a bias attributable to a pair of avowedly pro-open source editors acting as gatekeepers. As a consequence, through appeal to the 'notability' clause, listings of commercial CMSs were deleted. This sort of thing won't be solved merely by making the interface and guidelines more user-friendly. Yes, there is a demographic ("young, male and self-assured") problem. But the real problem is, first, the notability criterion, which is pernicious, and second, the sources of evidence criterion, which limits support for notability, in practice, to "peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books [and] reputable media sources." Sure, fix the interface. But Wikipedia should never have listened to its critics, should never have imposed notability criteria, should never have created a privileged editor class. It was better when it was edited by its readers. Related: Wikipedia, Notability and Open Source Software.

Today: 0 Total: 26 [Direct link]

Stephen Downes Stephen Downes, Casselman, Canada

Copyright 2023
Last Updated: Sept 26, 2023 05:37 a.m.

Canadian Flag Creative Commons License.