Comments on: Wikipedia – hypocritical?

By: Deran

Deran — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 04:59:26 +0000

Are you really so dense as to not see why this was pulled off the site? Or to even say that wikipedia is a reliable soruce of information? Yeah well next time you write a professional paper anything college level or higher, you turn in wikipedia as one of your sources, go right ahead, youll be laughed at. Wikipedia cannot be used as reliable source for anything that requires validated information. And the reason why this was pulled and others are not is because no ones cause a fuss over the other ones that are violating the policy, I havent even seen this movie but if its causeing as much controversy as everyone says then someone’s going to have a problem with it and eventually someone’s going to get a bunch of someones and make a problem for sites like Wikipedia. I dont think wikipedia’s going to stick their neck on the chopping block just so people like you can think they are a “reliable” source.

By: Sean FitzGerald

Sean FitzGerald — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:08:19 +0000

@mikkybkk: I’ve seen a lot worse too. For example, I’ve seen whole pages lifted off company’s website that easily violate Wikipedia’s ‘no promotion’ policy.

By: mikkybkk

mikkybkk — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:29:01 +0000

First time I see something removed from wikipedia (or something I cant wiki-lookup). When I googled “zeitgeist wiki”, as i often do to get info on stuff, all I got was an angry discussion page. LOL! It seems this movie have struck a few and make hairs stand on both sides. Will be excellent entertainment to follow the circus!

However, Im very disappointed in wikipedia. I have seen a lot worse things having their own wiki page. Just about ANYTHING has its own wikipage these days!

By: Sean FitzGerald

Sean FitzGerald — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:46:21 +0000

Norman: The producer has removed his contact details from his website due to an overwhelming response. It looks like you will just have to wait for him to make himself available again.

Of course if there’d been a wiki page up about the movie… :-/

By: norman smee

norman smee — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:36:54 +0000

i run a magazine here in the UK and would love to do an article on both the movie and the uproar it has caused. how can i get in touch with the film makers? a quick look on the website reveals no contact details!

thanks!

By: Spiegel

Spiegel — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:00:03 +0000

what about anticonsumer and youtube? way too many coincidences these days

By: Zeitgeist - too hot for Wikipedia? at HotnStinky

Zeitgeist - too hot for Wikipedia? at HotnStinky — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:54:27 +0000

[...] See the movie’s page, and its sources to get a sense of where it’s coming from… I’m not much on 9/11 ‘conspiracies’ — not because I think such evil is beyond the present gang of murdering, torturing criminals, but because I simply do not believe the Cheney Administration could have pulled off such a dazzling, flawless operation. But Wikipedia’s apparent disregard for materials that are not rendered “notable” by recognition from “official” sources is troubling. At best, it betrays a tremendous insecurity about its status. By suggesting that online cinema is not significant, aren’t they reinforcing the position of the Gormans of the world, that online resources are inherently inferior? [...]

By: OLDaily[中文版] » Blog Archive » 2007年7月16日

OLDaily[中文版] » Blog Archive » 2007年7月16日 — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:35:48 +0000

[...] FitzGerald, Sean’s Emerging… July 16, 2007 [原文链接] [Tags: Video, Wikipedia] [...]

By: Wikipedia bureaucrat action and the policy itself discredits wikipedia? « Learn Online

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:18:04 +0000

[...] in Australia/NZ edublogging land, and its over the often contraversial wikipedia deletion policy. Sean FitzGerald makes a valid point: Does anyone else see the contradiction here? The irony even? Wikipedia – the poster child of [...]