iEntry 10th Anniversary
RSS
Newsletter
Advertising
What has Wikipedia become?
The whole concept of fair is a cultural judgement.
It's nice to have guidelines in place to stop people from removing negatives about themselves, but who put those negatives there and what are their issues for using an online encyclopedia to put down other people or groups? Do they enjoy the buzz? The fame? The control? Is there anything altruistic about these people?
Also, how is an appropriate put down to be written? Are there guidelines for that as well? Nice to know there allowed though, isn't it?
Has wiki become no more than a giant blog of 'approved' bloggers, looking for something to blog about?
The concept of a free online encycopedia was a good one, still is, my kids use wiki every now and then, in spite of having several encyclopedias on discs.
I think wikipedia has crossed into the grey area and needs to redefine it's parameters and whether it is there to serve bloggers or the needs of students it was suppose to be meeting - 3rd world students in particular, from memory; or was that just a delusion of it's founder.
What has Phorm got to do with student subjects? I guess you can argue that in some sort of obtuse way I suppose.
I don't know anything about Phorm by the way - Don't care either. That's not the point.
Phorm 'unaware of Wikipedia rules'
Of course they were aware. They modified their entry on March 17th, as the 'Phorm Tech Team', and were made aware of the rules at that time.
You can see the details of this in the underlying Discussion and Edit History pages of the Wikipedia Phorm entry.
The edits were not as blatant that time, but nevertheless required some de-editing, even then.
This time, they posted from an IP adress. Why, since they already had a Wikipedia identity; unless they hoped to avoid detection?
But an IP address, though rather more secure than the much-vaunted 'secret' Phorm UID (now slated to be appearing in a phorged cookie, put there by Phorm - or should we start calling them Phorge? - for every website you ever visit), still revealed that the posting had come from a BT address, and one in a rather restricted netblock.
BT have now so discredited themselves that we all suspected it might, just, be them. But no, it was Phorge, as was always on the cards.
And we're supposed to trust these people to pick over *all* our web surfing, responsibly?
Feh