November 10, 2005
Re: a new definition
Definitions and Neutrality
"This discussion is starting to get interesting. I too agree with Florian and disagree with Olia that Olia's text is not as good as the texts Olia replaced. I also do not think Olia is keeping to Wikipedia's goal of "neutrality." In fact, many Wikipedia entries fail to achieve "neutrality." Perhaps as interesting, as a scholar I find Olia's position argumentative and the previous entries not argumentative and not "bad." Much of Olia's defense is argumentative, which is out of keeping with Wikipedia's stated goals. If I refer to Wikipedia in a published work, I would have no reason to expect the Wikipedia entry to change, and certainly not so dramatically, and certainly not on the authority of one person. Despite all this, THIS IS WHAT I LOVE ABOUT WIKIPEDIA. There *are* more and less neutral definitions in the world, but they are unstable and unreliable and likely to be overtaken by more opinionated advocates. The Britannica illusion of stable definitions is false and always has been false..." Re: a new definition posted by David Golumbia from gmane.culture.internet.nettime
"an interesting discussion starting up on the nettime list. interesting both in terms of 'definitions' of 'new media' and in terms of the usefulness or otherwise of wikipedia collaborative practices for definining current terminologies... http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0511/threads.html"--amc [relogged by amc on eyebeam] Olia Lialina's rewrite is here >>; and her original post is here >>
Posted by jo at November 10, 2005 03:10 PM
