Nick Carr is the New Dave Winer
First Nick Carr said Wikipedia isn't like open source because there isn't hierarchical gate-keeping, and then he said Wikis won't work because they don't favor experts. Now the claim is Wikipedia is dead because it is giving up it's open editing ideals, trending towards hierarchy and gate-keeping.
Sensational stuff as always, but factually wrong as usual. Go see Jimmy Wales' comments and then amaze yourself at how Nick is sticking to his guns to fulfill his mission:
My interest here, in case it's eluded anyone, is very simple: making sure that people know what Wikipedia really is and what Wikipedia really isn't.
The great thing about sensationalism is that it energizes debate within the network. I'm sure the mission is being fulfilled -- more people now know Wikipedia continues to fulfill it's ideals -- and despite sticking to his public guns, I think Nick secretly admits that's the real case. Thanks Nick, for making it fun, happy to give you some link love.
Apologizes for any ad hominem, simply makes for a sensational headline.
Written on a plane from Tokyo to Sapporo for the New Industry Leaders Summit.
Yup, the headline was sensational one. Two difference between Dave and Nicholas is that where Dave persists and creates technologies that have huge impacts, Nicholas is is a farter (fire and forget) who 'doesn't matter' much. If I can be frank, I think Nicholas is me like me than Dave. ;-p
Posted by: Don Park | May 25, 2006 at 03:27 AM
Having recently been almost immediately rebuffed by a Wikipedia admin deleting a page I wrote only five minutes before (yes I know, leave the poor volunteer alone), it got me to thinking about the switch to controled wiki entry. The first thing I did was search wikipedia for other neologisms (I put in a page for "Bloggers Corner"). Thousands of them. I also went looking for pages that were clearly using neologisms to promote companies (tons of them - just look at the page on "Blogging"). And herein lies the issue. The problem was that I was not notified of the delete (even if I had no choice to remediate). Another friend found the delete when I pointed him to the page. What this means is that Wikipedia has policy, but not process. IMHO, they had better figure this out extremely quickly or there will be a groundswell of animosity against volunteer admins who follow their own interpretation of policy without standard procedural guideliness. Remember, contributors are volunteers too.
Posted by: Niel Robertson | May 25, 2006 at 05:34 AM
yeah it is an ad hominem. what goes around ross, reap what you sow.
Posted by: Dave Winer | May 25, 2006 at 06:18 AM
It seems there are web properties that no matter how bad they become, some people will continue to defend them. In the meanwhile, much better services remain unnoticed.
Posted by: Randy Charles MorinRos | May 25, 2006 at 11:46 AM
Don, I thought I smelled something over on your blog.
Posted by: Randy Charles Morin | May 25, 2006 at 02:40 PM
The real question is: Does Nick carr Matter?
Posted by: Shel Israel | May 27, 2006 at 10:51 PM
Finding a solution that works is hard on the Wikipedia scale, because cases where it doesn't work easily get much more publicity that cases where it works. Some kind of gatekeeper is definetely needed, but who guards the gatekeepers?
Posted by: Juha Haataja | May 30, 2006 at 05:05 AM