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)
 * 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)

Suggestions and thoughts: --ragesoss (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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?


 * 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)


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


 * 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)
 * 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)