Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-06-01/Book review

Zvika, this is an excellent review, well-written and well-organized. You should cite that Steve Jobs quote. I'll go over it more closely a little later and try to make some more suggestions, but overall I think Signpost readers will find it very useful.--ragesoss (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I added a reference to the Steve Jobs quote. Let me know if you have any further suggestions. --Zvika (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions and thoughts:

At the beginning, it would be helpful to have a little more background on the author.
If possible, a bit more explanation would be helpful to connect the Hush-A-Phone issue to later innovations like faxes. It seems like there is a big difference between something you put at the end of a phone connection but that doesn't fundamentally change what the phone network does (like a Hush-A-Phone or an answering machine) and something like faxes (or phreaking) that puts the phone network to uses besides delivering real time audio signals.
It would be interesting if you extended the analogy with Wikipedia to your conclusions about highly generative and more reliable but less generative systems co-existing. Can we anticipate the escalation of malicious editing (perhaps with newer automated vandalism or even vandal botnets?). Can we foresee a similar broad public demand for a more reliable but less generative counterpart to (or version of) Wikipedia? There are several such alternatives, with various generativity-reliability balances, available (e.g., Citizendium, Britannica, scholarly publishing); should we look for some of those projects to gain or regain some of Wikipedia's mindshare?

--ragesoss (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are really good points. I am not sure though that I will have a chance to address them before this week's deadline. If I don't, I leave it up to you to decide if you want to wait with this for next week, or publish as is, or whatever. --Zvika (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting until next week is no problem.--ragesoss (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tried to address these points without making the review too long. The third point is particularly troubling and I don't have any answers, though I must say the idea is troubling. Perhaps the article will spawn some fruitful dialog on this. --Zvika (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Work of this quality brings up the inevitable question "is this suitable to cite as a periodical publication?" That is a question for the broader Signpost as a whole, whether it should be considered an edited publication ... and whether, in fact, pursuit of an ISSN and OCLC (sp) might be warranted. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]