December 16th, 2005 | Published in old and busted
> As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has some issues. As a model of how and where distributed intellect fails, it’s almost shockingly comprehensive.
Cutting to the conclusion:
> [T]he collaborative nature of the apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge, ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I reply: that does not inspire confidence. In fact, it makes the whole effort even more ridiculous. What you’ve proposed is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn’t exist depending on the precise moment I rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information.
The whole thing is to be read, savored, and pinned on the corkboard. It says in a few grafs what Andrew Orlowski has been failing to express in months of directed trolling.
Not so much a rebuttal of wikipedic zealotry as a savage and succinct castration, if I can be forgiven for associating power and persuasiveness with, er, dongs.