Comments on: Why the Wikipedia Enterprise 2.0 Debate is Irrelevant

By: Clarento

Clarento — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:23:45 +0000

“reeks of declasse…”

You’re suggesting this fellow is not from a high birth or station? That he gives off the foul odor of the streets? Of real life?

You know it baby!

Get yer blue nose out of the sky and embrace the hoi-polloi, girlfriend!

It IS against journalistic ethics to quote any source without revealing your personal relationship with the source. And you know the author left by the back door, not the front. Why hide it? Shit, I was there.

By: Problem with Ronaldo

Problem with Ronaldo — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:32:10 +0000

The above comment clearly lacks validity. There is no mention of a “niece,” and the managing editor clearly states that the author announced her departure for another position before the story ever went to print.

I suspect that “Ronaldo,” who is very likely this “Griot” mentioned in the article, quite falsely believes that this blog, if not the whole of the Internet, is his personal Wikipedia page. His tactic reeks of declasse, as he uses blogs and their hosts to post his defamatory remarks. If he bears any shred of self-worth, would recognize his actions are both transparent and shameful.

By: Ronaldo

Ronaldo — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:59:55 +0000

Mary Spicuzza didn’t get fired. She was asked to resign. Her article quoted her own niece’s — I should say, ONE of her own niece’s — many user names on Wikipedia without telling the reader that she was indeed quoting her own niece.

That’s a big no on, at least according to my journalism professor.

By: Zoli Erdos

Zoli Erdos — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:13:23 +0000

Wow, this is the first time I read the SF Weekly article, but it appears to be fair and I can’t imagine why anybody would get fired over it.

By: From the SF WEEKLY web site

From the SF WEEKLY web site — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:12:47 +0000

I edited this story and I can assure you that Mary did not get fired for this story or any other. Mary decided to leave the paper to take a job with a local documentary filmmaker. She gave her notice before the Wikipedia story was published. She disclosed to me early in the reporting process her sister’s fights with Griot and her sister’s role is mentioned high up in our story. Bottom line: We stand by the story.

Comment by Will Harper, Managing Editor, SF Weekly — February 26, 2008 @ 01:55PM

By: Jistum

Jistum — Sun, 25 May 2008 04:52:39 +0000

In my experience, Wikipedia is a place where misogynistic cyberbullies go to harass independent artists and riot grrrls. Case in point: Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, a leading artist and tarot card reader, had her article yanked from Wikipedia for no apparent reason. And when her sister Mary Spicuzza, a print journalist, wrote an article about it, she was forced to resign for “violating journalistic ethics.” You can read about it here:

http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-02-13/news/wikipedia-idiots-the-edit-wars-of-san-francisco/

BTW, you can also read what happened according to the creep who sexually harassed Jeanne Marie on Wikipedia starting here::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive372#Attempted_Outing_of_Wikipedia_Editor_User:Griot_by_Tawdry_Tabloid_Journalist

Remember: Information is only as good as its source. Garbage in; garbage out…

By: The Wikipedia Enterprise 2.0 Debate - Again| Zoli’s Blog

The Wikipedia Enterprise 2.0 Debate - Again| Zoli’s Blog — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:42:50 +0000

[...] the workings of Wikipedia, and chronicled the debate, but in the end concluded that it was irrelevant: “Enterprise 2.0 as a term my be relatively knew, but it’s not some theoretical concept a [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:43:54 +0000

I just think its ironic that no one questions whether or not its relevant to write a Wikipedia entry on a fictional character:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Bennett_Dyson

but people will debate for days and weeks on the “Relevance” of the Enterprise 2.0 entry.

To me, this proves the IRRELEVANCY of the Wikipedia and that the people involved (that includes the participants and bloggers) spend too much time fighting ‘principled’ battles that are meaningless to the real world.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:21:08 +0000

One of the things I found interesting about the “debate” in the blogosphere was that one of the Wikipedia editors visited at least two blogs (including mine, which was one of the first to comment on the deletion) and seemed to say that the act of deletion was a normal part of the discourse involved in Wikipedia production, and that all you had to do if you disagreed with the deletion was resubmit and improve the article. (I’m paraphrasing the editor’s comments; they can be found at the bottom of this page: http://www.ddmcd.com/dead_or_missing.html.)

My response was that deletion and editing are not the same thing and, even though I did not agree with that Wikipedia editor’s comments, I would not delete his/her comments.

Checking the newly resuscitated Enterprise 2.0 article in Wikipedia (courtesy of Ross Mayfield), I saw that that same editor had reviewed the deletion history and commented negatively in the article history about the manner in which at least two other editors had behaved in making the deletion.

All of this has left a sour taste in my mouth since it seems that even if one is interested in submitting to Wikipedia, editors (some anonymously) can come along and delete a work in progress. Yes, there are warnings that any submission can be edited and deleted, but I have to ask myself whether contributing in such a randomly operating editorial environment is worth the effort, given the availability of alternative publishing and conversation media — such as blogs.