hutcheson - 3:45 am on Feb 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

It's really funny how different one's perspective is, depending on whether one's cooperating with people, or competing with them. Wikipedia is surely one of the top five ways to cooperate online--on any imaginable subject.

I don't Wiki, but I have a great respect for those people who can work with others on a variety of difficult subjects, submitting their work to the review of their peers (and often, their inferiors). But that approach is not for everyone. Someone with a college degree, 20 years' experience in a field, and public recognition in his own (geographic) community may (and often should) have his own undiluted voice.

But most of those people who are calling themselves "authorities" online have no relevant education, no relevant experience, and no apparent skills other than plagiarism and self-promotion. When I'm looking for an authoritative source, I never, repeat NEVER, read a word beyond the point at which a webmaster starts calling himself a "resource" or an "authority." "Resource" is an encomium bestowed only by users; "authority" is bestowed only by previously recognized authorities. Anyone who calls himself either one, is just an ego with vocal chords.

At Wikipedia, at least the vocal chords are blowing something besides egotism (since the articles aren't signed, and the administrators are very good at keeping self-promoting links out -- as you can see by reading any Wikipedia thread here. But Wikipedia is extremely open to cooperation -- and although I don't contribute there, no less than three major cooperative communities that I DO contribute to, are exploring ways of coordinating better with the Wikipedia community: including deeper linking.

And that's part of what gets Wikipedia those millions of links. No matter how much you try to subvert the process, real-world realities still have a significant effect even online.