[PREV - THIN_VENEER] [TOP]
Sept 25, 2006
June 27, 2007
And here's a nightmare scenario for you:
Wikipedia continues to increase in popularity,
to the point where it's actually politically
significant what gets said in wikipedia articles.
A Karl Rove-type hires 100 people and tells them
to each get five wikipedia accounts, and develop
reputations as responsible contributors.
A year later, he's got 500 accounts he can play
with to do spin control.
Variation: substitute slashdot for wikipedia.
The 500 accounts all mod each other up.
Conclusion: anonymity is only good for
toy sites; it's not for serious use. Note though, that
"anonymity" has many
meanings on the web:
Part of the problem: the
"social network" sites are A logged-in handle is
*happy* to be toys. better than nothing, but
it doesn't mean the
They have no ambition speaker is not anonyomous.
to become anything more
serious than that. (Sep, 2018)
Are they, or are they not, The latest jargon
a new hope for democracy? "Bloggers" are seems to be "verified
full of pretension indentities" vs.
about such things, "unverified".
but light on
There are some
going around that
all but misses the
The major media keeps
trumpeting cases where And this, unfortunately
wikipedia's accuracy seems to be driving
is weak: wikipedia's understanding
of itself: they feel the
Wikipedia isn't need to *respond* to
*reliable*, because these complaints, instead
you have no way of of going it's own way.
knowing if it was
written by an
Of course wikipedia
*nothing* is reliable.
The real trouble, or so it
seems to me, with a site
We don't need such as wikipedia is not THE_ROVERS
guarantees that lack of professional
everyone is a involvement, but well
good guy, we funded attempts at
need ways of of subversion, of which we're
identifying the going to see much more in
bad guys. the future.
Addressing the After his talk in
speech and not the the "Long Now"
speaker is a noble series, Jimmy Wales [link]
goal, but no one, was asked a very
*absolutely* no interesting, very
one, actually works difficult question:
What if the Chinese
SOURCES_CONSIDERED tactics, and
instead of trying
TWO_LEVEL to block wikipedia,
they chose to
He went off into an
anecdote about dealing
with a tiny group of 16
(Aug 05, 2011) neo-nazis.
How we can possibly build But how can that
an infrastructure of the case compare with
future without real ids to the resources of
work with? Lancet doesn't mainland China?
publish medical research by
anonymous contributors, why And what if the
should wikipedia carry US Government
summaries of that research (or a faction
by anonymous agents? of it) is
[NEXT - ACCESS_RAMP]