(no subject)

[rm]

Wow the Saatchi & Saatchi innovation Awards has as the most annoying website. And the thought of Wikipedia, posterchild for factual accidents on the Internet, winning, just totally squicks me.

I think I'm getting sick. This is displeasing, in large part because it seems to be a cough thing, which is uncommon for me, so I can't really predict its duration or severity.

I just got up and should go do laundry.

Comments

[baldanders.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I think Wikipedia's a great choice. Not because it's flawless -- obviously it's far, far from it -- but because I think it's a great experiment showing evidence of slowly succeeding, because I like the model as an alternative (not as a substitute) to the information-from-authority model, and because it's transparent: while it is full of mistakes and stupidities, the provenance of them is visible, as well as the provenance of good information, and in many places one can observe the process of the arrival at good information, see the history of it, etc, as well as follow ongoing disputes about information. It's a focal point for the development of consensus truth.