Wikipedia Academy, Lund


I’m at the first Swedish Wikipedia Academy conference in Lund. Yesterday I did a talk on inclusionism vs. deletionism (vs. mergism) on the online encyclopedia (text available on-line in Swedish). Above is my audience who asked a lot of questions and were nice & friendly. Most participants are not themselves Wikipedians, they’re largely librarians and teachers. I’ve chatted with a lot of people, notably Mathias Klang and Lennart Guldbrandsson and Lars Aronsson, and I look forward to future collaborations.

[More blog entries about , ; , .]


8 thoughts on “Wikipedia Academy, Lund

  1. We had presentations by one guy who had fooled his law students by writing a hoax entry about something and then assigning the kids the task of writing about this very thing. They fell for it. (-;

    And two guys who let their students (islamology and astronomy) write Wikipedia entries as a kind of exam.


  2. The list Poptech linked to was interesting and I am sure has lots of completely true material, but it’s not altogether trustworthy. Just a quick read-thru revealed links to a blog which tried to claim that Erik Möller, the vice ED of the Wikimedia Foundation, was a pedophile by twisting his words and citing him out of context. Especially in that area it is very easy to get misquoted, but the blog goes out of its way to try to pin something bad to Möller. I get that the writer doesn’t like Wikipedia, but this is Reductio ad Hitlerum (


  3. Right it is not trust worthy because these sources are obviously bogus where Wikipedia is completely accurate!

    CBS News
    Financial Post
    Information Week
    Los Angeles Times
    The Daily Telegraph
    The Guardian
    The New York Times
    The Times
    The Washington Post
    USA Today



  4. Was that what I wrote? That Wikipedia is completely true in every aspect? No, I wrote that “The list Poptech linked to was interesting and I am sure has lots of completely true material, but it’s not altogether trustworthy.” And I gave one example which was untrue. I could of course give lots of examples where Wikipedia fails. But that is not the point here. What I really *was* saying was that Wikipedia is not nescessarily as bad as a site called the Anti Wikipedia Resource paints it out to be. Just like you wouldn’t go to a right wing party to hear the objective view on the left wing party, and vice versa. You go to someone who is neutral.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s