The premise of Wikipedia is laudable. A knowledge depository written and edited by the people, for the people.
The glue that keeps the site together is an evolving set of policies and guidelines, but, these guidelines are open to much interpretation and debate.
Here are 10 of Wikipedia's daftest discussions.
1. What's in a name?
Some of Wikipedia's denizens don't like the way academic researcher and well-known blogger danah boyd (legally) spells her name - without caps.
"Why is it OK for her to impose her nonstandard styling and the costs that come with it on the rest of us?" said R27182818 on the subject's discussion page. The argument continues to this day, and the Wikipedia article on danah boyd is still titled "Danah Boyd".
2. Though shalt not edit thy own biography
Even danah's own intervention couldn't sway the most hardline opposers, because Wikipedia has a rule that discourages living subjects from editing their own entries. Carl Hewitt, an associate professor at MIT was rather notoriously banned in 2007 - according to The Guardian - for editing his own biography and promoting his works.
Wikipedians said his activities were "disruptive". Professor Hewitt countered that his page "significantly misrepresents both me and my work". He was inspired by the incident to write a paper entitled The Corruption of Wikipedia on Google's rival user-edited encyclopaedia, Knol.
3. Goodbye, Larry
While Carl Hewitt got the boot, Jimmy Wales, the guy who founded - sorry, co-founded Wikipedia - got away with editing his own entry with little more than a war of words.
He stood accused of removing references to his former partner Larry Sanger. Amusingly, the whole episode is now detailed on Wales's own Wikipedia page.
SELF-EDITING: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales deleted former partner Larry Sanger from his entry. The ensuing edit war spread through Wikipedia like a forest fire
4. RIP Swells
Wikipedians love arguing about whether entries deserve to be on Wikipedia. Why was there an argument about the notability of Steven Wells, journeyman music journalist and famous broadcaster when he passed away last year though? Cultural ignorance we suspect.
In this case, one Wikipedia editor voted to delete the entry, 24 hours after Wells died. The argument that ensued was brief and one-sided, but definitely whacky.
5. Fictionally famous
The question of notability grows feathered wings of insanity when the subject in question is fictional. This was such a contentious issue that the folks editing the actual guideline have had had several meltdowns over wording.
First mooted in 2006, four years later the Notability (Fiction) guideline is stalled at "proposal" stage. Referred to in Wikipedia itself as "the mother of all notability disputes", the archived discussion currently runs for 56 pages - most of them tetchy.
6. Happy Birthday, Jimmy Wales
Another guideline that trips up new Wikipedia editors is that all information should be based on "reliable sources". But what's a reliable source? For example, another edit war involving Jimmy Wales sprang up when the Wikipedia co-founder decided to remove his date of birth - saying it was incorrect.
Plenty of friendly Wikipedians were happy to "correct" the edit he made citing secondary sources, including Encyclopaedia Brittanica. Mr Wales's entry currently says his birthday is 7 August - with a note at the bottom saying that this is wrong... by one day.
7. Chicken Kyiv
One of Wikipedia's Five Pillars is "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view" or NPOV. But is there such a thing?
One chap's reasonable belief is another's fundamentalism. For evidence see slanging matches like the ongoing battle about Ukraine's capital city. The Ukrainian name is "Kyiv", but the article uses the Russian name "Kiev".
Proponents of the latter spelling say that it's more common, while champions of Kyiv say it's a hangover of Soviet rule.
THE RULES: Wikipedia's Five Pillars include "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" and "Wikipedians should act in a respectful and civil manner". Really
8. Hummus
Tasty chickpea dip or battleground for Middle Eastern politicking? On Wikipedia, it's both. Contributors couldn't make up their minds whether the dish was Israeli, Turkish or Lebanese in origin. Last time we looked at the discussion section, another six countries were laying claim to the garlicky entrée.
9. Big G
Religion and politics are perennial flamebait - but few arguments are as silly or circular as one in the discussion section of Wikipedia's Derren Brown entry.
It's not about the beardy mind fiddler - it is, rather, about whether the article should refer to God or god. Big G is, of course, the Christian God, Jehovah. In the context it was used, a TV special where Brown temporarily converted atheists into believers, there was an argument that the illusionist meant a generic god or gods. Small g. The argument raged for a good nine months. Just thinking about it makes our brains go "ouch".
10. Young Earth
Think that's whacky? You should have a gander at the discussion section of The Age of the Earth, where a battle between creationists and rationalists includes argumental gems like: "After reading the first paragraph, I nearly threw up. Since when were Creationist views on the age of the earth un-scientific?".
All in all there's plenty here to prove there are two sides to every internet argument, and both are usually wrong...
Related Stories
 |  |
By now, most of us know the short story. Google came out with a new social network and they integrated it right into Gmail. Then, a big privacy uproar ensued. And tech pundits everywhere chime in on whether Buzz matters or not.
Does it matter? Is Buzz actually worthy of it’s name? Or are we looking at another snorefest, the likes of Google Knol or Lively?
There is little doubt that Google Buzz started out with a big bang. A huge part of this was their strategy for integrating this right into Gmail. It means they have a built-in audience of over almost 150 million people, right from Day 1.
In the process of doing this, they also brought on controversy. What they did was initially have you following a group of people based on who you email a lot. The problem with this is that it then exposed to the world those people you communicate with a lot via email. Not everybody likes this idea.
Google responded quite quickly with a fix. It will suggest users to follow, but not actually follow them. They also stopped connecting Buzz to Picasa and Google Reader shared items. They realized the way they set it up from the start was rather stupid. I think they were thinking more like software engineers with a goal of quick promotion than like end users. The result was a PR issue for Google, a complaint filed with the FTC and a class action lawsuit.
Personally, I think the FTC complaint and lawsuit are nothing but publicity stunts. Lawyers would love to dig into Google’s pocketbooks, and there is nothing like generating a little Buzz of your own by cashing in on the Buzz created by Google Buzz. 
All in all, Buzz looks a lot like FriendFeed. So, in that respect, it isn’t really anything new. Like FriendFeed, you can post comments and comment on other people’s comments. You can share items into Buzz, like images, shared items, tweets, etc. So, it is a pretty typical social network, really.
What is novel about it is only that it is integrated into Gmail accounts. For people who like an all-in-one experience, Buzz is pretty handy. It is also set up quite well for use on mobile devices.
All in all, if you’re not much of a social media guy already, you probably couldn’t care less about Buzz. On the other hand, I would expect Buzz to be used by a lot of people new to social media. After all, having it integrated into the email experience is a pretty big deal and is very likely to introduce it to a whole crop of people who would have never seen it otherwise.
Honestly, the jury is out. However, I’ll be very clear about this: Google Buzz is here to stay. I don’t think there is any chance that Buzz is going to go the way of Knol or Lively. Not only has the Gmail community dived in head first, but the Google development team for Buzz has been quite engaged so far. If this level of engagement and effort to improve the service keep up, Buzz is going to develop into a major force in social media.
Plus, let’s face it. Google can’t make a step like this and not make a wave. They are a huge company, and they launched it in such a way so as to have instant community.
As for the naysayers, they are either being jaded, short-sighted, or came into this with a hatred for Google to begin with. Jaded, I can understand. We already have tons of social networks and Buzz is just another one. Short-sighted, you can’t do anything about. Google has launched products which flopped, there is no doubt. But, I don’t think Buzz is going down that route. And, as for the Google haters? Well, whatever.
I’m personally not all that excited about Google Buzz. But, I see the potential. Google could have a huge thing on it’s hands now, depending on how they play their cards from this point forward.
Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.
Google Buzz: BuzzWorthy Or Boring?
Update – Google just reached out to us and explained that they meant that they are considering a version of Buzz apart from Gmail, not divorcing the two. Their statement: No, we’re not planning to remove Buzz from Gmail. Among some of the features we’re considering is building a standalone Buzz experience in addition to the one in Gmail at some point in the future.
According to Google’s VP of Product Marketing Bradley Horowitz, Google is considering pulling Buzz and Gmail apart. The linking of the two has caused numerous privacy scares in the last few days, and has ruffled the feathers of some Gmail users who found the introduction of social streams into their inbox downright annoying.
Our friend Danny Sullivan got to and him, and pried the following information out of him:
Horowitz said Google is considering separating Buzz from Gmail, so that people can participate independently from email. The company might also allow people on Buzz to claim new names and redirect anyone seeking them at their old profiles to the new locations. Horowitz says Google also continues to look at ensuring search is a good way for people to locate the “right” people, as well.
If Google does this, it will change Buzz in one action from becoming the next big thing in social interactions, to a complete Knol. By integrating Buzz tightly into Gmail, Google has made some users angry, but has also breathed full life into a new product.
Would you ever go to Google.com/Buzz just to use Buzz? Of course not. Do you use Buzz because it is tied into your inbox existence? Probably.
Buzz and Gmail are two products now joined at the hip, and to attempt to separate these twins is going to leave one of them dead, and one mostly unscathed. Sure, at the moment there is a nearly Facebook userbase level of discontented hubbub around Buzzes intrusion into email, but that will pass.
The people who are the most annoyed will hide it. Everyone else will either ignore the product or use it. But to pull it and make it walk on its own when before its two legs were gm and ail, is suicide.
