 |
 |
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