tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19194800.post-52127896412333940602008-02-20T14:30:00.000-05:002008-02-20T14:30:00.000-05:00rebecca - If you're referencing the calling out I received on Sphinn and Search Engine Land (about Wikipedia) know that wasn't the first time. I'm all for being loyal to a cause but I could reverse your suggestion to the person calling me out. If he's SUCH a champion of the Wikipedia, why not dialogue instead of criticze. Two wrongs don't make a right but it seems Wikipedia people are always defensive and always willing to put others down at the drop of a hat. It happened to me twice - this is my biteback. <BR/><BR/>Jim - the article is junk, pure and simple but I never said the rest of the Wikipedia was. That would be silly. Thank you for the link to Wired, I'll read it.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous My readers aren't librarians, they're business people with limited time who expect good information from a source that claims to be an authority. I know it's a huge place but - a concept/page as important as link popularity deserves attention and proper information on it. It's been sitting there for months... who's watching the store? <BR/><BR/>Ok - for the record.... Wikipedia is not bad. The page I found is bad. Fix it. I'm not going to, I've been bounced out of there before for trying to add quality information to a section I also happen to work in. That's a smart way to get experienced people to add credible info? I'm not a spammer but was treated as such, if it happened to you, you'd feel the same way.Debra Mastalerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06031174326858288903noreply@blogger.com