Comments on: The end is near?

By: Thomas Pellechia

Thomas Pellechia — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:32:50 +0000

Oh, I agree with Dylan: re, the subjectivity of interactive wine sites as opposed to the intended information of Wikipedia. They shouldn’t be the same thing–even if more often than not they seem to be blended that way.

By: Dylan

Dylan — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:13:17 +0000

To your question, Arthur. It’s good for Wikipedia, I don’t think it means anything for wine sites. Wikipedia is trying to become an objective encyclopedia. User driven wine reviews are expected to be subjective.

By: Thomas Pellechia

Thomas Pellechia — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:37:17 +0000

Can’t add much to the three comments, as I agree with them. But then, I’m just a lowly journalist who values accuracy, even if people believe we no longer exist…I submit that the online world has added tremendously to that image of inaccuracy, if not inanity.

By: Pwok

Pwok — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:57:15 +0000

Wikipedia is beyond hope. By design, they subordinate truth to consensus. Two-thirds of their administrators are below the age of 25, and one-third below the age of 18. The new policy will change nothing; it will only freeze inaccuracies in place. There is a good reason why universities throughout the world prohibit their students from citing Wikipedia as a sourse.

By: Maskman

Maskman — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:53:11 +0000

When one considers the secret mailing lists, cliques, power plays, malice, and plain old-fashioned error that have so often defaced Wikipedia, it’s time and beyond time that someone took a hand at reining things in.

By: Geff

Geff — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:41:40 +0000

Every page on Wikipedia should have to be approved before being edited. The amount of inaccurate information on it is ridiculous, and too many idiots believe everything they read.