The ReadWriteWeb vs. Wikipedia Dilemma: The Battle Over Blog Credibility

Hey there, fellow internet wanderers! 🎉 Have you ever tried to share a link on Wikipedia only to be shut down quicker than a toddler at a candy store? If you’ve been following the tech blog ReadWriteWeb (RWW), you might’ve heard about their own harrowing experience with the Wikipedia blacklisting. Buckle up because I’m about to take you through this wild ride that encapsulates the ongoing tug-of-war between traditional sources and the emerging world of blogging.

What Happened to ReadWriteWeb?

So, this week, a reader reached out, sharing a frustrating encounter while trying to link RWW to a Wikipedia article. Imagine his surprise when a message popped up saying that RWW had triggered Wikipedia's spam filter! 😱 With a little digging, it came to light that RWW had been blacklisted since 2008, deemed 'spam' without a clear reason. Say what? In this digital age, the idea that a site could be blacklisted without justification feels pretty outrageous, doesn’t it?

After a string of emails and tweets, RWW was told that to fight the blacklist, someone needed to make their case on Wikipedia's talk page. Cue the dramatic music, right? 🎶

The Battle for Credibility

Here’s where things get even spicier: RWW found out that Wikipedia has a standing policy against citing blogs. Yep, you heard me correctly! In a world where online platforms thrive on shared knowledge and diverse viewpoints, this policy seems outdated. It’s like saying, “Sorry, you can’t bring your homemade pie to the potluck because it’s not store-bought.” Seriously, who even made that rule?

While RWW fervently argued their case, explaining their commitment to journalistic integrity, one Wikipedia admin even stated, “Blogs, and Blog sites are Link normally to be avoided.” Ouch! Talk about a slap in the face for those who dare to question traditional media.

The Defenders Emerge

However, it wasn’t all doom and gloom. Another Wikipedia admin, Steve Walling, stepped up to defend RWW, pointing out that it has an established editorial structure and is even syndicated by none other than The New York Times! 📰 It’s like having your talented friend vouch for you when everyone’s questioning your skills.

Walling argued that RWW should be viewed as a legitimate source, just like other well-known blogs that have their content cited on Wikipedia. Public sentiment started to lean towards reconsidering that stubborn policy, especially since it appeared RWW was being singled out. Unfortunately, others still pushed back, suggesting that all blog posts are essentially “self-published” and, therefore, not reliable.

A Call for Change

This entire saga highlights a broader issue at play: why does Wikipedia seem so resistant to blogs? As it stands, Wikipedia treats them like second-class citizens in the land of credible sources. 🤔 It’s quite a paradox, don’t you think? A platform that thrives on user-generated content is dismissing other contributors because they happen to express their ideas through a blog format.

In a way, isn’t Wikipedia itself a prime example of “self-published” work? After all, it’s driven by countless volunteers eager to share and edit information. Shouldn’t that recognition extend to reputable blogs as well?

The Irony of It All

It's undeniably ironic that while traditional media recognizes the value of blogs, a source as foundational as Wikipedia seems to sideline it—a classic case of “not invented here.” The pull for change is palpable; common sense should prevail, right?

As of now, RWW has successfully exited the Wikipedia blacklist—a small victory but indicative of a larger message: we need to diversify our credibility sources. So wade into the editorial waters with awareness! The lines are blurred between blogging and traditional journalism, and it’s high time we accept that.

Wrapping It All Up

In the end, this “ReadWriteWeb vs. Wikipedia” ordeal isn’t just about one blog; it’s about redefining what we consider a credible source in an ever-evolving digital landscape. Change is on the horizon, and, like a magnifying glass to the sun, we can ignite a fire of progress just by asking the right questions.

Now, let’s switch gears a bit. Here are some unique FAQs related to this topic to wrap things up:

FAQs

1. Why was ReadWriteWeb blacklisted by Wikipedia? - RWW was blacklisted without clear justification, as it was deemed spam. After inquiries, it was discovered that Wikipedia has a blanket policy against citing blogs.

2. What is Wikipedia's policy on citing blogs? - Wikipedia generally avoids citing blogs, categorizing them as "self-published" sources, which they believe are unreliable for citation.

3. Did anyone defend ReadWriteWeb during the blacklisting process? - Yes! Wikipedia administrator Steve Walling defended RWW, noting its editorial structure and syndication by reputable outlets like The New York Times.

4. Is ReadWriteWeb the only blog on Wikipedia's blacklist? - It appears to be the only professional blog on the blacklist, raising concerns about consistency in the application of Wikipedia's policies.

5. What could change Wikipedia's stance on blogs? - Increased recognition of blogs as legitimate journalistic sources and push from the community could encourage Wikipedia to revisit its policies.

6. How can blogs be valid sources for academic research? - Blogs can provide insights, personal experiences, and emerging trends that traditional sources might overlook, provided they are from reputable authors.

7. What does the term “self-published” mean in this context? - "Self-published" refers to content created and disseminated by individuals without editorial oversight from established publishing houses.

8. Why is it important to have diverse sources of information? - Diverse sources ensure a more complete understanding of topics, foster innovation, and encourage different perspectives in discussions, particularly in fast-evolving fields.

Now, go ahead and share your thoughts! Do you think blogs should have a place in reputable sources like Wikipedia? Let’s chat in the comments! 👇