Home
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mail
You would think in the world of online resources, instant communication, and social networking sites that allow for the creation of a personal online shrine to oneself that the epitome of online knowledge, Wikipedia, would allow for something similar- a creation of a page about, well, yourself.
Unfortunately, after registering, I discovered that this is not true.
Not only can you not create an article about yourself no matter how noteworthy your blogs may be on MySpace, you can also not cite blogs as references - they need “reliable resources.”
Uh, excuse me? So the thousands of blogs of informed writers around the country on top of the thousands upon thousands of blogs posted daily (hourly?) from around the world recording first-hand experiences and eye-witness accounts don’t resonate as “reliable resources”?
You know what? I smell a crock - and it’s bubbling.
Now, I know the essence of such a policy actually reflects the need to not have every Tom, Dick, and Harry running around, creating an article about themselves in the online encyclopedia. What bothers me, though, is that if you don’t have an official website otherwise (or else are at least present in the general public eye), you’re up a crappy creek with no paddle, ladies and gents.
So to this I say: Wikipedia, one day you will regret not featuring an article on Peachy Keen Stevo.
For the rest of you, you can check out my blog at MySpace. Atomic Froth contains a wide variety of things- and you’ll see why Wikipedia should want me!
RSS 
I used to think Wikipedia was fairly accurate, and I guess on the average, maybe it is, but when we’re talking about a source that an unfathomable number of people visit each day to get information about whatever- meaning that Wikipedia can’t afford to have botched information.
Several years ago, I read something in an article that was inaccurate, and I knew it was inaccurate from my own familiarity with the subject. I wish I could remember what it was, but that opened my eyes quickly.
We should of had more woman write history maybe than we will get some truth
To pick on one source of information and not another is hypocritical
In this world of instant information ,research and try to find truth that satisfies your thoughts
And I agree, I wish women had been more involved in the writing of historical accounts.
Are they females, or?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benyam_Mohammed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NawlinWiki/Articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hermione1980
She edits only articles that interest her, and those change. She thinks AfD is a cesspool of bad faith and refuses to participate there any more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grutness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank
And a list of such nonenties might be extended.
Personally, I would not use Wikipedia as a reference for a single word targeting really educated, professional public.
It allows ”democratic” communicating with V.I.P. to selected only.
Browsing Internet, your modest not-linked-with-the-UK-biologically respondent was a couple of months ago surprised by finding the pages of him in Wikipedia-both in a major volume and in a space for simply John Does of the Earth, in a section called “Commons” (sounds like somewhere in feudal parts of the world rather than in the Land of Free, the USA, the country having fought for and successfully won a political sovereignty from an overseas crown centuries ago).
Someone had spent time for searching, writing and publishing an informative publication with a dozen of external links to different respectable sources worldwide for no apparent reason: it not only was in a month deleted and even comments followed such a censoring are simply root and offensive at even less world-broad scene than Internet presents.
Your reader is not overwhelmed with necessity of being epitomised with Wikipedia but at least two nuances trigger questions of even some possibility to appear on its pages:
- Nowadays, steadily, even at the UN level member states accuse each other in tampering with particular web-pages of their leaders and internal political issues
- A nice “DONATE!” command has been located above titles of articles.
Therefore,
- are authors of Wikipedia really FREE from ones’ pressure to publish information, and
- is a deploying a Wikipedia space really FREE of charge?
So far, the newest Wikipedia rules disallow even correcting technical articles without approval of “two estimated Wikipedia users”, which, one could surely say, makes this electronic source less-FREE much more explicitly.