Today brings a strange WaPo article on the supposed weakness of Wikipedia because several of the original contributions on Ken Lay after his death were inaccurate, even intentionally so. The article was corrected within a few days of his death, and that, WaPo would have us believe, is a bad thing – better to not have the article at all, than to have it within a matter of days, I suppose.
Everything new is old again, it seems, and the breathtaking power of Wikipedia is already leading some to clamour for whatever is next. (How about a book, updated by experts every year or so, and sold door to door out of the trunks of chevys?)
So many things have been said about Wikipedia, but it’s a fact that many people all over the world use it, inaccurate or not, and it’s here to stay.
Yet another Wikipedia death notice…
It’s tough to come up with something that has been declared either dead, broken or irrelevant as many times as Wikipedia.org (okay, the Bush presidency comes close, but that’s in a different category altogether). Nick Carr alone has probabl…
Loosely related, and I know it’s been covered to death: but doesn’t Ken Lay’s death remind of something on 24? I’m remembering Jack Bauer’s “death” and …. Ok, enough of that. Sorry.
:)