Print

Print


Interesting. I am definitely reconsidering my opinion of Wiki in general.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Mcluhan] Roth: An Open Letter to Wikipedia
From: Eric McLuhan <[log in to unmask]>
To: Discussion of McLuhan-related topics <[log in to unmask]>
CC: 

I have had a similar experience with mine and my father's material. For example, their entry on "the medium is the message" is seriously flawed and, in general, wrong. Heaven knows hpw many people have used this erroneous explanation as gospel and quoted it in papers, etc. I tried to point oiut the errors and indicate where to find the truth (I quoted McLuhan's own explanation from the 2nd or 3rd paragraph of Chapter 1 of Understanding Media) and was told that they did not consider my opinions to be persuasive. I tried agaijn a few months later, and was told essentially the same thing. Curious: they could have checked my quotation quite easily.
	Andrew, my sopn, has recently tried to correct an error or two in the Wiki article on Marshall, and got the same treatment. Upshot: do not trust anything you get on Wiki. It is, though, a good source for what the crowd thinks about this or that.
Eric



On 2012-09-12, at 7:14 AM, Tom Gray wrote:

> it is common know edge that Wikipedia has problems with editors controlling what is written in the articles. Editors or groups of editors will seize control of a topic and exclude any idea from it that does not coincide with their favored viewpoint. For example, there were numerous editors suspended and banned on topics in global warming. They had, for an extended period of time formed a cabal, that systematically excluded viewpoints that did not match their own. Perhaps the editor in Roth’s case has a point in that the author may be regarded as an authority on their work but that there can be other views on influences and effects. What seems to be wrong here is that there was no justification or even explanation given for the current article and that the article was not modified to reflect the contrasting viewpoint presented by the author. For example,  a poet named John Doe  could have his work described as heavily influenced by T. S. Eliot. He could write to Wikipedia to say that he was not at all influenced by Eliot except perhaps to an inconsequential extent.  However credible critics may find influences from Eliot that had become part of the culture and had been absorbed by Smith without his realizing it. An article reflecting this would be much better than one with the simple statement  “Smith was influenced by Eliot”.
>  
> Wikipedia has major problems with this. They claim to be an encyclopedia but their structure enables cabals and cliques  to form that  defeat this purpose
>  
> From: P
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 11:34 PM
> To: Discussion of McLuhan-related topics
> Subject: Re: [Mcluhan] FW: Roth: An Open Letter to Wikipedia
>  
> He is insufferably loquacious to the point of being soporific. I think anyone with the intelligence to resolve his difficulty would have the intelligence not to take him seriously. He does, however, deserve recognition for the phrase "alleged allegation"
> Cheers,
> Peter
> 
> howard wetzel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Now Peter, even with your help, do you think Mr Roth will reach a sufficient number to still the matter?  I doubt many readers of Wikipedia read the New Yorker.
>  
> From: Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>; "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tue, September 11, 2012 7:00:30 PM
> Subject: [Mcluhan] FW: Roth: An Open Letter to Wikipedia
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Monty Solomon
> 
> An Open Letter to Wikipedia
> 
> Posted by Philip Roth
> September 7, 2012
> The New Yorker
> 
> Dear Wikipedia,
> 
> I am Philip Roth. I had reason recently to read for the first time
> the Wikipedia entry discussing my novel "The Human Stain." The entry
> contains a serious misstatement that I would like to ask to have
> removed. This item entered Wikipedia not from the world of
> truthfulness but from the babble of literary gossip-there is no truth
> in it at all.
> 
> Yet when, through an official interlocutor, I recently petitioned
> Wikipedia to delete this misstatement, along with two others, my
> interlocutor was told by the "English Wikipedia Administrator"-in a
> letter dated August 25th and addressed to my interlocutor-that I,
> Roth, was not a credible source: "I understand your point that the
> author is the greatest authority on their own work," writes the
> Wikipedia Administrator-"but we require secondary sources."
> 
> Thus was created the occasion for this open letter. After failing to
> get a change made through the usual channels, I don't know how else
> to proceed.
> 
> ...
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mcluhan mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.media-ecology.org/mcluhan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mcluhan mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.media-ecology.org/mcluhan
> _______________________________________________
> Mcluhan mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.media-ecology.org/mcluhan


_______________________________________________
Mcluhan mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://www.media-ecology.org/mcluhan