jumpy jumpy vitamins

Found a link to an article on El Mercurio’s Web site (El Mercurio is a conservative Chilean newspaper) about Conservapedia. Google’s translation service is almost laughably bad on this article — how does “Bizarro” become “Gallant”? — and Babelfish’s is worse, so I’m resorting to my own (rusty) knowledge of Spanish to interpret what it [...]

The word “wiki” will be entering the Oxford English Dictionary, that great bastion of the Mother Tongue. This is especially cool considering the “reading process” used to populate the OED. Relevant quote from the OED’s own history piece: Many of the most consistently productive readers were not renowned scholars, but interested laypeople. *pause* Now think [...]

So, Conservapedia. “We think Wikipedia is biased against our viewpoint, so we’re going to start our own.” Deliberately politicized wikis are not new — hello, dKosopedia — and wikiforks are not new either — hi, Wikinfo. Conservapedia explicitly lists its beefs with WP, though, and intends to supplant Wikipedia as the definitive information source. Naturally, [...]

So most of you have probably seen or heard mention of Wikipedia in the press lately. First, the Essjay incident: a Wikipedian rose to prominence, getting himself loads of responsibilities including administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight rights and a spot on the Arbitration Committee. All of this was done while said Wikipedian was pseudonymous. The [...]

[Re-surfacing quickly to point out something that gets overlooked all the freakin' time.] Dear Professor Lessig et al., I read your comments in the New York Times article “Courts Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively” with great interest. However, I believe you may have overlooked something. If you would like to cite a specific revision of [...]