When discussing the concept of “Wisdom of the Crowd”, there are only three kinds of people:
-
The Critic
-
The Believer
-
The Supporter
Doesn’t understand at all.
Likes telling everyone “this cannot work.” Points to examples in Wikipedia that are “simply wrong” or do not exactly represent the truth and uses them to prove the whole concept as crude, broken and useless.
Thinks he understands.
Believes in the concept. If he learns about the “wrong” Wikipedia article, he tells the Critic that he “can change everything that’s wrong and make it right.” Eventually tells him “how simple it is.” Might even tell him that “this is the strength of the concept” and that it leads to “higher quality articles”, “a better encyclopedia” and “a better world in general.”
Really understands.
Doesn’t talk much. Just acts. Goes to Wikipedia and changes the article.
This comment does not necessarily need to be seen as a reply to the addressed Wikipedia example.
How come that the balance of the basic three kinds of people, as explained above, is usually not in favour of someone’s situation/circumstances/environment ?
I remember a statement that might, although not answering the question, fit all three kinds of people:
‘When you do not learn to identify and eliminate the incapable people with the false promises quickly, you’ll end up being the ‘good’ idiot.’
As a matter of fact, the given statement might only make sense to me… in case you’re dazzled : mea culpa :)
So I want to know does any body else use wikipedia and what for?
what was the most informatibve artical you found there?
What was the wierdest one you found?
I use wikipedia mostly durring my lunch time at work to just read up on stuff. the most informative artical I found was on the mineing and refineing
process for copper (because I learned about the job I have, and got to show off to co-workers ;p) the most interesting was probably on cheese witch I
actualy e-mailed to my self so I could finish reading it after work.
oh well, got wiki?