PeoriaIllinoisan has a great idea going over at his blog. He’s been visiting Wikipedia to see what it has to say about our fair city and thinks it’s missing some important information. Check it out.
UPDATE: Wikipedia is “an encyclopedia written collaboratively by many of its readers.” All entries are supposed to be written from a “neutral point of view.” And most importantly, contributors are supposed to respect other contributors. So, how does one explain that after a contributor added “Name This Peoria Landmark” to the “external links” section on August 12, someone named “rklawton” removed that link on August 13? Is someone purging Wikipedia’s Peoria entry of any blog references?
There were several excuses given, but in the end, the real reason is that it’s a blog.
“WP is not intended to be loose and easygoing, like a blog”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peoria%2C_Illinois
I guess I’m not familiar enough with how Wikipedia works. Are “rklawton” and “George” the official referees of the page, deciding what is and isn’t “appropriate” content? I notice they list the Journal Star and other media outlets. Why wouldn’t blogs be included? It all seems very subjective.
They would appear to be the self-imposed referees. I don’t really know if blogs are appropriate or not; I was a little surprised at the quick smackdown of my site. I got the impression that had my site said “.com” instead of BLOGpeoria.com, it wouldn’t be quite as offensive.
Most larger entries have pros and cons of a controversial subject, such as pointing out some of the critics arguments of against Museum Sqaure. I’m sure that would immediately be erased.
The contributors to the main articles seem well versed in Peoria and it’s history, so I still don’t know why there aren’t any references to Peoria’s ‘hey-day’. I plan on working up something small and seeing what happens.
They also talk alot about no-advertising links on the site, which is fine, but I find it hipocritical to list Weaver-Ridge and East Side Center (ie Splashdown) under Points of Interest.
Despite it’s open-collaboration nature, Wikipedia is strikingly accurate. A test was once done where swear words were added to entries and the average time to removal was less than 5 minutes. Many people watch the entry of their choice to ensure that it is kept accurate.
Yes, sometimes it does end up that there are self-appointed moderators of a particular entry. In some cases Wikipedia does appoint a moderator. Also, articles with neutrality problems state this at the head of the article. You can link to the disussion page and read all the bantering back and forth that led to the article being put on the “watch list”.
Since it is supposed to be neutral, I would support the removal of the link. After all, adding a link to your own site is hardly neutral. Also, blogs are many things, but one thing they are NOT is neutral.
That being said, I personally love the Peoria Landmark blog.
Tony,
First, thanks for the complement.
I’m not offended that my site isn’t listed; but I certainly don’t think putting it up myself is being ‘non-neutral’. It’s hardly political, nor am I selling anything; I simply thought it would be a unique addition of the list. I’m certain that most links are left by the people who created the sites, and most of the articles are written by people close to the subject at hand.
Take the Peoria page and look at “Planned Development”. I’d be surprised if the articles about Museum Square, Renaisance Park and Peoria to Macomb Highway weren’t written by people who have a vested interest in the project. If it’s written in a neutral manner, that’s fine. If it’s obviously biased, it should and will be edited.
Maybe the addition of your site isn’t particularly biased but the addition of sites like yours in general is.
I would suggest anyone that would like to know more about Wikipedia read . It’s quite good.
damn HTML. My comment should read, “I would suggest anyone that would like to know more about Wikipedia read this article from the New Yorker. It’s quite good.” The link ended up being “It’s quite good.” Sorry all.