NY Times Magazine Takes A Neutral Point Of View On Wikipedia
from the not-so-bad dept
Over the years, there have been tons of articles about Wikipedia — some more ridiculous than others. The haters of Wikipedia are pretty common, though, as you read what they have to say it often becomes clear that they don’t actually understand Wikipedia and believe it’s something it’s not. However, the NY Times Magazine this past weekend has a more interesting — and, frankly, “neutral” — article on Wikipedia that looks more at the people who keep Wikipedia going as well as Wikipedia’s impact on news coverage. It notes that Wikipedia is often much better than offshoot Wikinews when it comes to keeping up with breaking news. However, what’s most interesting is hearing the various quotes from the various volunteers who keep Wikipedia going. Despite what you may have read from various Wikipedia critics, the folks who devote so much time to Wikipedia take it, and its principles of neutrality, incredibly seriously. While there may be nothing really new in the article, it’s one of the first that I’ve seen that gives a more reasonable picture of how Wikipedia’s biggest supporters view the site — and it works quite well as a response to people who insist that Wikipedia couldn’t possibly be trustworthy (or that it somehow is an affront to “experts” — when that’s not the case at all).