What is Digg?6 Comments
- geminitojanus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I really hate to say this, but that two-bit actor is going to be remembered by a lot more people than the serial entrepreneur and the 3d graphics engineer. Our society as a whole has grown to idealize the unobtainable; famous people are much more valued than smart people, even though that's almost the complete opposite of how it used to be (back when Einstein became a household name for publishing a scientific journal article).
While I think it's odd that Wikipedia will reject an article about anything really (as I've seen some really obtuse articles, and some really poorly written important articles), I'm not at all surprised at the social commentary. People don't get enthusiastic about vegetables anymore, they get charged by the famous person they see on TV. They don't care about science unless it's a half hour show on the Discovery Channel, but you can damn sure know that you can find a list of every person to have ever competed for American Idol somewhere on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a broken model for what an Encyclopedia should be, but it's the best model we currently have for what it is. While it would be absolutely great to have that article on that 3D technique, the odds are that article isn't going to tell anyone any more about the subject than what's written up in papers and some bitching and moaning about how this person is wrong and how that person technically invented it first and edits and reverts and such.
This is what you get when you move to chaotic social media. It's why Digg is becoming an absolute cesspool (but it's still more current than Slashdot, even if the comments look like they were written by 4th graders). And it shows you just how truly hard it is to maintain something as big as Wikipedia (as a huge amount of effort is just put into moderating the self important jerk writing up his own opinions on everything, or the people who think they're cute by going through and inserting fowl language or otherwise spamming the hell out of it). - macabaret, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4My favorite, for its importance/utter irrelevance factor: Vegetable vs. Vegeta
The original Something Awful story:
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wikigroaning.php - popothebright, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Here's another example: Actors (and I mean just about any two-bit sitcom / daytime soap actor) can have a Wikipedia entry. But try writing up a Wikipedia entry for a serial entrempreneur who has made tens of millions, or a 3D designer who developed a new 3D technique, or anyone who is important (even 'very' important) to their field and the editors frequently reject them because they are deemed "not important enough". Even on Wikipedia, it seems, our culture is determined to serve the lowest common denominator. The television watcher is more important than the casual student of, say, Ornithology. "Not important enough" to whom, one wonders? Apparently the soap opera stars are worth remembering, but not the greatest university professors in our nation? The problems with America are also, it seems, the problems with Wikipedia.
- Itazura, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well when a vegetable's power is over 9000 I'm sure it will get more details in its wiki.
- BlackStar77, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's becoming so bad, I can't tell the difference between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica.
- macabaret, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I couldn't agree more. But it's important to remember that "there is no cabal" - that is, Wiki is a lot like Digg. If you have the energy, make the case on any entry's Talk page for its un/importance... I've found coherent arguments convince all but the most megalomanical of editors.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is