In other words, if the media were honest, they would be taking Wikipedia to task for allowing totally anonymous people to make extremely consequential decisions about what is passed off as knowledge. But I think that the media prefers it that way, just like Wikipedia does.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Anonymity paired with great responsibility—that's a recipe for certain corruption.
Show this thread -
By the way, I have no issues with anonymity online in general. In fact, it's very important that we preserve the right to anonymity online. But anonymity in knowledge projects is very problematic. See an old speech of mine:http://larrysanger.org/2008/03/a-defense-of-modest-real-name-requirements/ …
Show this thread -
Poll! Should we still give Wikipedia money even if they refuse to disclose the identities of their top editorial decision-makers, instead preferring to keep them anonymous and thus under the control of—who knows?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Back when people actually cared about knowledge more than mere information. Seehttps://gumroad.com/l/LFUIT
End of conversation
-
-
-
The worst is - anonymity. Anonymous administrators attack content reliability hiding their faces. Just like terrorists who hide their faces while executing terror attack.
-
I have no problem with anonymity online. It's very important in some circumstances. But anonymity paired with great responsibility—that's a recipe for certain corruption.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Well, Sharyl invited me on her program to discuss this, among other things.https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/05/wikipedia-is-broken-controlled-by-special-interests-and-bad-actors-says-co-founder/ …
- Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
