Jimmy Atkinson, who doesn’t much like Wikipedia (but I do), lists seven “alternatives,” each of which is supposedly better because it either is run through credentialed experts or is proudly biased. (Well, one site is a parody.) [Tags: wikipedia]

Meanwhile, Dan Bricklin takes advantage of his blog – as per David Winer – to try to set the record straight about the history of the spreadsheet as presented in the Wikipedia article on the topic. Dan is reluctant to edit the Wikipedia article itself. Editing articles concerning oneself is frowned upon because it’s well nigh impossible to be neutral about one’s own story. In general, I think that’s a good rule, although it can mean we lose some of the most valuable testimony. Maybe there should be a place or a convention by which people can enter their testimony. Yes, you could go onto the discussion pages, but I wouldn’t know to look there for Dan’s demurral. Maybe there should be a tab for “Viewpoints,” where people can leave commentary on an article without altering the article itself. Or maybe that would relieve the useful pressure to get people literally on the same page.

By the way, “This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality” in response to Dan’s post.

Categories: Uncategorized dw