If you had the slightest idea of how Wikipedia worked 1) you wouldn't have been surprised by the Ed Schreyer outcome, 2) you wouldn't be mailing posts to info-en@wikipedia.org, and 3) you wouldn't talk about "The Management" at Wikipedia, as if it were the local town paper.

Chris, you told me you had made your edit to the Schreyer article. I told you what would happen. I spoke to no one else on the matter. Of course, exactly what I said would happen came to pass. Will you now give up your notions of a left-wing cabal running Wikipedia for its own sinister ends?

As to people taking digs at you (in this case, an editor commented on Buors' public comments here in finishing an edit), there is a whole world of open discussion in the talk and project pages. We talk about what we do, what is happening in the world, what the right thing to do on a given occasion might be, we debate, squabble, argue and fight, and yes, we even have a laugh about the silly people who try to muck up our work. It is called transparency, and you do not find anything like it at Britannica.

Hmmm, what does Britannica say about cannabis these days?

I look at this all from the KISS principle.


Pretend you were me an you went to the Wikipedia en page.

There is a "contact us" button, yippie.

But from there is it not quite crystal clear where "complaints" go. Essentially, that's what I got, a complaint.

So fooy on you. Wikipedia ought to be serving their customers or users and it ought to be simple to go there and find a spot where complaints can be made.

The Ed Schreyer post is young still.

Currie ought not be sending semephore signals from his position of Editor because it makes the project look very juvenile.

See, I would still have no respect for Wikipedia if I came accros the Wikipedia entry on Ed Schreyer. With all the man's accomplishments why highlight a minor blemish? Especially considering his age and his geographic location.

Do you think Encyclopedia Brittianica people would entertain the entry?

I just think about what stands I would set. To me this is all politcal correctness bordering on alarmist ugliness.

To me an Encyclopedia ought to have higher standards than to impart any personal opinions the individual might have.

Like I said, I would expect that out of the National Enquirer because that is the business they are in.

To me whenever I see any public person's opinion of homosexuality, good, bad or indifferent, I will have no choice but to make a Wikipedia entry. After awhile, Wikipedia will look like that for some perverted reason, what every individual on the planet thought of homosexuals was important enough for entry.

Strange days indeed!

Does anyone remember that episode of Star Trek Voyager where Q2 wishes to commit suicide, which the Continuum would forbid. Janeway agrees to mediate, and is taken to a metaphor for the Continuum, a scene set at a filling station on a isolated desert road. One person is reading a book, titled The Old, another is reading a magazine called The New. There are other elements as well: a bloodhound (security), a pinball machine (amusements), others conversing (community). The metaphor is very elegant.



Wikipedia is a hybrid of the Old and the New, and is sometimes criticized for lacking depth in the Old and having an overabundance of the New. I think that, so long as it avoids breaking the story, i.e. crossing the border into journalism, the instant articulation of current events is a good thing, and Wikipedia has tooled itself for it in such a way that, as John Paul II was dying, his article effectively stayed up-to-date almost minute-by-minute.

In regards to Chris' comment,"With all [Schreyer's] accomplishments why highlight a minor blemish? Especially considering his age and his geographic location.", the answer is because it is topical now, in the context of Election 2006. If he hadn't been running for office, Chris' edit may have been deleted if no issue was made at the time of his remarks, or if it did not stand out in the scope of other issues at the time. Had it not been broken in the media, I would have left it out, but others may not have, and perhaps a discussion on relevance may have ensued.

Similarly, Chris intended making another run at public office at a time when same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general were highly relevant. In my view, and that of others, it is this which have made his remarks of biographical relevance. As it was his stated reason for withdrawing, it remains relevant. I mean this with as much kindness as I can impart: Chris, you're on the wrong side of history. It is not always a bad thing, sometimes it is a great virtue, but in your case, there it is.

Chris' notion of biographical relevance is so highly ideosyncratic that absent anyone else agreeing with him, his next step is to pretend that there is no standard of relevance, and propose peppering the entire biography collection with comments on each figure's homosexual views. Perhaps this next example will illustrate how I think of it.

Nixon had an express horror of gays, "wouldn't shake hands with anyone from San Francisco", as later came out on the Watergate tapes. His attitudes on gays, jews, hippies and communists in fact shaped his attitudes towards cannabis, and his eventual War on Drugs. None of this is in the article yet, and should be. There will be a fight over proper historical relevance, and Chris will see just how many right-wing editors lurk at Wikipedia. The debate will be instructive. But for the War on Drugs, what would be of consequence in his career to indicate that his attitudes on homosexuality were of particular biographical relevance? There might be something, I don't know what that would be, but that is the lens through which I would consider the question.

One final way to look at relevance: somebody thinks, "Hey, what about that, that thing I heard, or wondered about- can't be the only one, can I?". He looks on Wikipedia and finds it there, accurate, in context, referenced- the straight dope. That's the result of a good editorial decision. As a user of Wikipedia, I have that experience constantly. As an editor, I try to make it happen for as many users as I can.

There is a "contact us" button, yippie. But from there is it not quite crystal clear where "complaints" go. Essentially, that's what I got, a complaint. So fooy on you. Wikipedia ought to be serving their customers or users and it ought to be simple to go there and find a spot where complaints can be made. (Buors)

Chris is right, Wikipedia has a formidible barrier-to-entry between reading it and interacting with its community. John Seigenthaler Sr. waited five months for something anyone would have gladly fixed for him in minutes, had he even used the talk pages or posted to an admin page. People don't know how to do that. It is not obvious. Chris, how many times did I tell you to post comments and concerns to the talk page for your article, giving you the link for it several times? You never did. I think you didn't understand why I was saying to do that- there was a cultural barrier to get past (or, maybe you were just being stubborn, I don't know ). But, you have your own website, most people aren't nearly that webliterate.

That's all kind of maditory participation if someone says something you don't like.

To me Wikpedia has no class and if it lets the Ed Schreyer stuff stand, then underserving of the term Encyclopedia and more deserving of gossip rag.

To me encyclopedia means "important facts", not what someone was gossiping about at an obscure forum.

But like I said I would likely adhere to more Encyclopedia Brittianca standards. And they wouldn't evn bother having a page on a minor figure like me and that is the way it ought to be.

I use Wikipedia for research at Universtiy, and consistantly it has come up as the most comprehensive resource (outside the use of Google as a whole) for any type of information I am looking for.

To point out one flaw and then paint the entire service as invalid is completely ridiculous-- you are missing the point of the website.

Considering that it's open to the public I'm amazed they
recieved such a good review from Britannica.
I've never had any problems on the few times I've used it
but I figured there would be a swamp of vanity posts and
fiction.

I can certainly see the attraction to contribute.
Most people would never get a chance to participate
in a body of work that large.

I didn't really think I'd have much to contribute to the
history of legalization thread, but I can probably add some
info to a few of the cannabis threads.

And in the interest of full disclosure "I have homosexual
friends" Like I care what you do with your gentials when
I'm not around.