Wikipedia’s ‘mainstream’ problem.

Slate’s  David Auerbach published an article this week called  “Encyclopedia Frown”. It’s a great summary and it’s showing how this problem is just increasing. “The encyclopedia that anyone can edit” is at risk of becoming, in computer scientist Aaron Halfaker’s words, “the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the…
Read more

Update: The ISHAR project

As readers of this site may know, I come into this ‘problem’ facing mind/body topics on Wikipedia as an outsider, I have no ‘mind/body’ agenda in my professional life – as my focus is media architecture with a focus on online consensus building. I got involved with this community primarily because I offered to help…
Read more

Where truth dies online…

. Spiked online just published a broad review of the unaccountability issue on Wikipedia. Much of it is not new, but I was happy to see Wikipedia’s influence being understood as a method of manipulation for influencing public opinion, and if abused properly an essential tool in propaganda.  By controlling Wikipedia they could set the…
Read more

Trust me, I’m lying…on Wikipedia

 “Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator” by Ryan Holiday,  suggests another motive for contributing to Wikipedia. “Wikipedia acts as a certifier of basic information for many people, including reporters. Even a subtle influence over the way that Wikipedia frames an issue – whether criminal charges, a controversial campaign, a lawsuit, or even…
Read more

Dirty Trick tips from Tim Farley, skeptic activist

. Susan Gerbic and the GSoW appear to think I have enough credibility to clear them of involvement on the Sheldrake article. Today on their Facebook fanpage she writes: From Susan: One of the trouble makers from the Sheldrake drama believes GSoW when we say we were not involved.  http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/the-battle-begins/#guerilla-skepticism-on-wikipedia-or-just-wikipedia-skepticism Well first off I’m glad…
Read more