Dear Wikipedia,
I am Philip Roth. I had reason recently to read for the first time the Wikipedia entry discussing my novel “The Human Stain.” The entry contains a serious misstatement that I would like to ask to have removed. This item entered Wikipedia not from the world of truthfulness but from the babble of literary gossip—there is no truth in it at all. Read more: September 7, 2012,
The New Yorker
"I certainly never write a review about a book I don't think worth reviewing, a flat-out bad book, unless it's an enormously fashionable bad book." --
says, John Gardner in Conversations with John Gardner
Quoted from 'Dictionary of Library and Information Science Quotations' Edited by Mohamed Taher & L S Ramaiah. ISBN: 8185689423 (New Delhi , Aditya, 1994) p.150.
Available @ Amazon.com
says, John Gardner in Conversations with John Gardner
Quoted from 'Dictionary of Library and Information Science Quotations' Edited by Mohamed Taher & L S Ramaiah. ISBN: 8185689423 (New Delhi , Aditya, 1994) p.150.
Available @ Amazon.com
Showing posts with label Wiki. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wiki. Show all posts
Saturday, September 08, 2012
Thursday, February 21, 2008
I predict that this wiki will be none to sticky
NB. This is not from my desktop.Posted by David E. Williams of the Health business blog
Reed Elsevier and other big scientific and medical publishers have had a hard time adjusting to the electronic age. Their expensive journals are taking a drubbing from open source alternatives like Public Library of Science (PLoS) –co-founded by my junior high school lab partner, Mike Eisen. And despite the fact that the Health Business Blog itself is delivered to Elsevier clients thanks to an agreement between Elsevier subsidiary LexisNexis and Newstex, Elsevier is still in rather deep trouble.
Unfortunately for them, their latest innovation WiserWiki, isn’t going to bail them out. From Information World Review: continue readingInfo courtesy: Informaticopia
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Wiki Demystified - Plus Google and Minus Google, and No Google
Two stories motivated this post:
Recently there has been quite a stir within the SEO community with people seeing a huge dominance of wikipedia in the Google search results (Graywolf has been one of the more vocal critics recently with a whole load of posts - although he’s been writing about it for some time).
But don’t just take Greywolf’s word for it - there’s plenty of articles about this, most notably recently the google cache wrote about how 96.6% of wikipedia articles rank in the top 10 of google.
It has been noticed outside the world of SEO as well - PR Blogger has just written an analysis of Fortune 100 companies’ wikipedia pages.
"Larry Freed, president of Foresee Results which did the survey for the university, pointed out that users don't see anything different in Google's portal from what they saw three years ago. But Yahoo has refurbished its portal and gained in points." More on this Yahoo! Overtakes Google in Latest American Customer Satisfaction Index survey
My 2 cents:
The above search result, limiting search, is and was a common practice already and offered by Google. What's new that adds with a plugin? I don't know.
FYI. Search Google with a minus sign (or go to advance search feature and select: without the words), and see the results for: medicine -wiki, -wikipediahere and here for medicine here (without any search restrictions)
There was significant interest in our piece yesterday on the online tool that shows the identity of organisations where employees have changed Wikipedia pages.
The focus of the story was changes the CIA had made to pages, but other organisations - including The Vatican, the US Democratic Party and US company Diebold - didn’t escape our attention.
A new tool can help trace anonymous Wikipedia edits -- and improve the reliability of the online encyclopedia.
DUSSELDORF, GERMANY (08/16/2007) - A word of caution about editing entries "anonymously" in Wikipedia: a tool has been developed that can show who made the changes.
My 2 cents:
Does identifying the organization or collective group of people editing it (more so do that without expertise), doesn't increase or decrease the value of tool. And comparing this Wiki, with Enclyclopedia Britannica has already been dealt in the media: Wikipedia study 'fatally flawed'
See also my previous posts:
Labels: Dictionary, Reference, Reviewing, Web Analytics, Wiki
Friday, June 08, 2007
Top 7 Alternatives to Wikipedia
[NB. This is not a review or view from my Desktop. This is courtesy: Jimmy Atkinson]
Bottomline:
What do others say about an alternative to Wiki
Then the question remains:
Can we compare oranges and apples?
Can we compare a fee-based product (safe and authoritative) with a freebie (free, almost close to being unauthoritative)
Is there an equation in an (open source) document with what comes in a edited and propreitary protected information service?
See also related posts from my Blog:
Wikipedia and Academia Hit News Headlines Again
Is this yet another Wiki in Library and Information Science
Researchers Turn Web Blather to Books
Published on Thursday 7th of June, 2007
Touting itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", it's no wonder that Wikipedia has garnered so much bad press lately. After all, it is hard to imagine that millions of anonymous users could accurately maintain a factual and unbiased living encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a non-profit site that is policed by hundreds of volunteers, yet very few of these volunteers have the experience and knowledge of a professional writer/editor. A cultural bias has seemed to have washed over many entries on the site, as general consensus replaces cold, hard facts. There is also a matter of vandalism, which the site is susceptible to. These problems, coupled with the almost obsessive behavior of many of the volunteers (try placing an external link on the site without having it removed), have led people to other sources for information. If you are looking for a different kind of online encyclopedia, try the seven alternatives to Wikipedia listed below. Read the full article
1. Scholarpedia
2. Citizendium
3. Encyclopedia Britannica Online
4. MSN Encarta
5. Infoplease
6. Conservapedia
7. Uncyclopedia
Bottomline:
What do others say about an alternative to Wiki
Then the question remains:
See also related posts from my Blog:
Sunday, April 08, 2007
'Wiki' Wins Place in Oxford English Dictionary
INTERNATIONAAL NIEUWS
'Wiki' finally legit, says OED
Gregg Keizer, InfoWorld
Six years after Wikipedia.org debuted, editors at the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) have finally deigned to add the word "wiki" to the OED's online version.
The term joined a handful of other technology-related entries added to the online OED as part of the dictionary's quarterly update. Also added: "Infobahn," "malware," "undelete" and "virtualize." Continue reading
See also:
Previous posts from my Blog:
NB. This is not a review from my desktop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
More about (my new home) Google sites and the old home, READ 