Sunday, May 07, 2006
One degree of separation.
Shannon Rupp writes about Wikipedia and Kevin Potvin this weekend in the Globe and Mail, with reference to a self-post that Kevin did last fall on Wikipedia about himself, or his 'Republic' newspaper (I'm not sure which she was referring to), which she calls a tabloid.
I think she's onto something in this article, except for the Potvin dig (more on that later). I often find her articles a touch too glib, trying to be smarty and edgy, but a bit too forced. But not this time. I've had questions about Wikipedia myself, I keep going there for definitions, but very seldom get what I need. Maybe I'm confusing it with a dictionary.
But she's right, this kind of 'open source' encyclopedia has it's ups and downs, and the stronger articles are the ones that have multiple contributors, and here's the key I think, editors. We could all use editors, maybe that's the attraction of blogs, no editors (but that's a different posting. Lord of the Rings comes to mind as something desperately in need of editing). So single contributor articles like Kevin's on himself, which I must admit I haven't read (I will after this post, but I want to write this based on what I got from Shannon's article first), are low down the pole in credibility.
But, so what? If Kevin wants to define himself a certain way, who are we to stand in his way, and with the web and Wikipedia, it's even easier. Is it any less real than the stuff we get from the White House (we have 'unknown unknowns'), that the media regurgitate ad nauseum?
Shannon calls Kevin 'a pamphleteer':
Shannon ends her article with 'Always consider the source'. Always a dicey ending. Do we apply that to the article we just read?
Now about the one degree of separation. I know both Kevin and Shannon.
Kevin's son and mine are on the same soccer team and I've talked to him a number of times, and even attended his 'victory' party after the last municipal election, where he did the best of all independants, but still lost. I find him intelligent, thoughtful, a good listener, and a great soccer dad. I think of him as walking around with a sharp stick that he enjoys poking things with to stir them up. I can't think of better person to have in our city and society.
Shannon and my wife used to be friends. I always enjoyed our friendly and snarky banter, and always enjoy reading her, both when she's (mostly) right like this, and when she's been wrong (Ha! That's an example of friendly and snarky banter).
It's strange when you read an article written by someone you know about someone you know, and I couldn't help but comment on it. I guess that's what blogs are for.
But that's another posting...
I think she's onto something in this article, except for the Potvin dig (more on that later). I often find her articles a touch too glib, trying to be smarty and edgy, but a bit too forced. But not this time. I've had questions about Wikipedia myself, I keep going there for definitions, but very seldom get what I need. Maybe I'm confusing it with a dictionary.
But she's right, this kind of 'open source' encyclopedia has it's ups and downs, and the stronger articles are the ones that have multiple contributors, and here's the key I think, editors. We could all use editors, maybe that's the attraction of blogs, no editors (but that's a different posting. Lord of the Rings comes to mind as something desperately in need of editing). So single contributor articles like Kevin's on himself, which I must admit I haven't read (I will after this post, but I want to write this based on what I got from Shannon's article first), are low down the pole in credibility.
But, so what? If Kevin wants to define himself a certain way, who are we to stand in his way, and with the web and Wikipedia, it's even easier. Is it any less real than the stuff we get from the White House (we have 'unknown unknowns'), that the media regurgitate ad nauseum?
Shannon calls Kevin 'a pamphleteer':
Kevin Potvin writes and publishes a weekly print tabloid called The Republic of East Vancouver, full of inflammatory opinion pieces reminiscent of the ideological rants of 18th-century pamphleteers. It claims a circulation of 6,000. Yet, according to Wikipedia, Mr. Potvin is a colossus. - Working through Wikipedia's vanity fair. Globe and Mail. Page F7. May 6, 2006.I think Kevin might take it as a badge of honour. Now who was that other guy who wrote and distributed pamphlets in the 18th century? Oh right, Voltaire. Journalists of the time probably didn't like him either.
Shannon ends her article with 'Always consider the source'. Always a dicey ending. Do we apply that to the article we just read?
Now about the one degree of separation. I know both Kevin and Shannon.
Kevin's son and mine are on the same soccer team and I've talked to him a number of times, and even attended his 'victory' party after the last municipal election, where he did the best of all independants, but still lost. I find him intelligent, thoughtful, a good listener, and a great soccer dad. I think of him as walking around with a sharp stick that he enjoys poking things with to stir them up. I can't think of better person to have in our city and society.
Shannon and my wife used to be friends. I always enjoyed our friendly and snarky banter, and always enjoy reading her, both when she's (mostly) right like this, and when she's been wrong (Ha! That's an example of friendly and snarky banter).
It's strange when you read an article written by someone you know about someone you know, and I couldn't help but comment on it. I guess that's what blogs are for.
But that's another posting...
// posted by Bob Walker @ 6:09 PM 
