SF Weekly is one of those (mostly) liberal, self-described “alternative” rag (alternative to what ?, a conservative throwaway rag in SF? There aren’t any!) and yes there are hooker advertisements in the back, but sometimes even these guys are right , especially when it’s stuff you probably already know, but believe differently because of the packaging or hype.
On Wiki people still sockpuppet , pretending to have all these credentials they actually do not, pretending to live a life they don’t.. 20 somethings pretend to be professors (read article) -Most of us know people do this on the net, anonymity making it easier to make oneself seem more (whatever) than one truly is.
This is news? Oy.
Non-sock puppet folks I know “IRL” (in real life) agree Wiki is like a tourist info center, a neither here nor there place that might have a sign pointing you to an actual useful place for further exploration, but not a destination in itself. Anyway this Spicuzza woman went after a particularly vicious Wikian “editor” . Ooo “editor” .. sounds kind of legit and important, right? Nah. In case you didn’t already know-anyone can be a “Wiki editor”. Example: a person can have their friends edit their wiki page and argue “fairness” thus making their friend’s page more flattering, less slimy or further toot their friend’s horn in a vainglorious display of boot licking suck-up splendor-
I believe boot licking+WIKI are sort of “IKI” (icky) together , eliciting pathos rather than eros. The reverse of which is the personal crusade against other wiki-idiots/page subjects as the SF article illustrates. Gawd, getting into endless notations/deletions/debates over defining “Wiki-reality” makes pulling weeds seem fun. A thing is what it is, Wiki or no Wiki, and usually shows itself by itself enough in time that no Wiki-editing is necessary, enough people just “know”.
Of course there are Wiki- parodies out there, unfortunately these seem redundant in Wiki’s wake, the encyclopedic equivalent of “Can I has cheeseburger/lolcats” (google it, srsly).
So,here’s to “equality” in editing/fact-checking, everyone having an = chance to sockpuppet, suck-up, tear-down, play pretend, make up stuff, get into long , drawn out life-wasting wiki-battles and bootlick ! Whee!
Story at this link:
While everyone who reads an entry can click through to its editing history, as well as to any accompanying debates about changes and additions, you often still have no idea who the real-life editor is. How can you consider the source when you don’t know who the source is?