The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Jonathan Versen:

Teresa, I really think you're wrong to give up on wikipedia. I don't know how to persuade you. the formal tone edit is obviously not the product of an anonymous "drive-by" editor, because you have to know the coding to produce the tag.

Nevertheless, part of the wiki "ethic", such as it is, is if you see something wrong, instead of griping, take responsibility and fix it.(the tag has since been removed, though not by me. It was already gone when I got there.)It's easy to cast aspersions and insist on a fairly rigid wall between the authority and the audience.

I remember Billmon's last post(Dec 2006) at the much-missed Whiskey Bar in which he referenced various posts of his 2002-2006 regarding the Iraq war and insisted the reason he was far more right about the likely outcome of the war and the occupation than the experts were was not because he was necessarily smarter but because of his diligence in making the effort to educate himself and his willing to follow his paths of inquiry to where they led. Obviously I paraphrase.

But I think you know my point. Wikipedia has been slammed a lot, mainly by respectable op-ed types who are threatened by the ramifications of the wiki idea, that a collective call to the commons, and the belief that most people will act with good will when given an opportunity to contribute to the common good, just might produce something more valuable, or comprably valuable when compared to the traditional wares offered with arguments by authority. (If anything, I think the formal tone tag has come to be precisely because of wiki's critics.)

And as far as the noteability tag goes, the moment you suspend this, managing an already massive database (and bandwidth bill) will become exponentially harder, and wikipedia could well morph into a wikipedia-myspace hybrid prone to "wikibombing" that will make searches incredibly problematic.

One of the reasons for the formal tone tag, obviously, is there are some atrocious articles out there in wiki land. (Browse the articles on pop stars, especially younger ones, for a concentration of these.) The formal tone tag allows experienced editors to search specifially for tagged articles quickly, and correct them (or detag them.)

Wikipedia has lots of problems, but it's still an incredibly valuable resource, and far more readily searchable than a print encyclopedia. Take Gigirose's point about the relative transperancy of wikipedia, letting you know where they got their info(well,in the better, properly written articles.)

Then there's Paula LIeberman's point that academic prose is often bad writing. Absolutely-- but I don't think the best articles on wiki are like that. David Bilek says that if he wants a print encyclopedia he'll go to his bookshelf. Well, wikipedia also empowers poor people who don't have access to a public library, if they have web access. Regular encyclopedias are expensive, and you don't need me to tell you about how relentless the drive is in this country to defund public libraries.

Your point about writing "the article is fine the way it is" is undoubtedly valid. But some people are just jerks.

(Incidentally, there's also a new development by some ex-wikipedians called Citizendium. For my part I wish them both well.)

And yes, if this were a wiki article, someone would immediately criticize its length. Guess I got carried away-- sorry.

Global warming is caused by the atmospheric friction caused by striking the keys on your keyboards when you leave comments at really popular blogs. That's why I'm thankful everyday that hardly anybody visits my blog, let alone leaves a comment. I probably should feel bad about leaving this comment too, as well as using punctuation and the extra keystrokes this entails. For this reason I'll stop rambling forthwith and I won't end this with a period

I think a lot of blog-associated email addresses are harvested through the paypal link that display an email address when you click through.

incidentally, have any of you ever tried searching for the return email addresses or unusual key phrases from suspicious emails? you'll often find other people commenting on them being spammers.

hold on, I've got an email, gotta go. It's probably a hot Russian babe with my free laptop and rohhhhhlex.

"...who did Winona Ryder in a jewelry shop?"

What!!

[sounds of scrolling back to check, and blog-themed elevator music]

Oh.

I don't know-- I like my version better, even if the actual quote makes a little more sense.

Tell me, does Ms. Wyatt look like a really suggestive scented candle? Or is someone selling such a candle, perhaps one that would fit nicely in Ms. Ryder's purse?

gormless? what is gormless? should I aspire to gormfulness?

A lot of his supposed maverick status is due to the repellently fawning coverage he mostly gets.

I guess the press will do their best to disregard his recent endorsement of the expansion of the war when the time comes, but it would be nice if voters remember anyway. By all rights that would be sufficient for his presidential aspirations to be dead in the water-- or so you'd hope.

Wait a minute: if that oft-repeated statistic about how 22 per cent of the electorate believe that moral values are the most important things to vote for, then what about the 78 per cent who, presumably, AREN'T so preoccupied with The abomination of gay marriage and the rapture and all that rot?

Comment statistics for Jonathan Versen on the Making Light blog

Total: 8 comments. View all these comments on a single page.