Blog future vs NYT future: none of the above!

Discuss

7 Responses to “Blog future vs NYT future: none of the above!”

  1. Practical Archivist says:

    Actually ::adjusts library nerd glasses:: what sets apart Wikipedia is that every entry is a summary. That’s the whole point of encyclopedias, doncha know. NYT articles and blog entries aren’t really designed to do that.

    Plus it’s not (just) about authority and trust…

    Searchers don’t want certainty, they just want to reduce their uncertainty. I learned that in Library School. In 1994.

  2. jphilby says:

    a horde of nameless, faceless amateurs

    Yes! damn those little people and their ignorant hides!
    If you’d listened to them, you’d think they’ve been responsible for most of history!

  3. Glossolalia Black says:

    Yay for Library Nerds, for they probably make up a nice chunk of the hobbyist Wikipedia editor sect.

  4. Rukasu says:

    Andrew Keen is turning in his grave…

    …what’s that?…He’s still alive?

    …Oh…well…I’m sure he’s pissed.

  5. richard schumacher says:

    And there’s something in the future for everyone to dislike.

  6. zander says:

    Long Bets has arrived at an official decision whcih is posted on the Long Now blog here:
    http://blog.longnow.org/2008/02/01/decision-blogs-vs-new-york-times/

  7. Lis Riba says:

    Actually, I’ve seen a fair bit of evidence that Google artificially inflates Wikipedia’s rankings — it often appears higher than more directly relevant results and higher than the same search on other engines.

    So the better candidate for 800-lb gorilla is Google itself, which can tweak the results to favor its preferred sources.

Leave a Reply