Print

Print


Goodness Nancy, I think we may agree on something. What puzzles me is Roth's style here. I don't remember his being so wordy, loquacious even. Am I wrong?
Cheers
Peter

Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>The first time I ever tried Wikipedia, it was to see what they said
>about Hugh MacDiarmid. They did not even have his name right. I have not
>found any improvement, and I do not accept it as a citation. One thing
>students, especially, need to learn is the necessity of editors and peer
>review rather than mere assertion by anyone.
>
>I'm very glad to see this addressed by people like Roth and Eric
>McLuhan, as their word seems to take on some value.
>Nancy
>
>
>>>> P 09/12/12 8:12 PM >>>
>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 
>To: Discussion of McLuhan-related topics 
>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, S________________________________________
>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