This page debating the merits of whether Hacking Netflix should be listed or not in the links section of Wikipedia is a great example of why I don’t spend more time at that site. Thanks Dave.

There are editors within Wikipedia that will fight over really small details like this. It’s a link and Hacking Netflix is clearly one of the best Netflix-related sources out there so why shouldn’t it be linked on the Wikipedia page for Netflix? It’s unfortunate that the Hacking Netflix author got involved and tried to add his own link back. He should have stayed out of there and let them debate whether he was an amateur or not until they all turned blue. Maybe the Wikitruth will link Hacking Netflix?

For the record, I don’t think I’m an amateur here. I’ve been writing for years and long before this blog. I’ve been paid to write and continue to be paid to write here every day. Do I write a lot from the first person and provide detailed first person accounts and reviews? Yes.

I could write more from the third person and polish the posts more but you know what? I like them raw, visceral and in the first person. That’s a great part of what attracts me to the blogging format and that I don’t have to spend extra time polishing these posts is part of the reason I continue to share on a daily basis.

If I had to spend hours editing and polishing then I’d want — no, I’d need – to be paid more for my time. Not sure there would be a market for this extra time on the reader/subscriber side, so Hmm readers get almost verbatim what churns out of my head, mostly raw and unchanged. This might be amateurish activity, but that doesn’t make this an ‘amateur’ blog. Or maybe it does in the Wiki Gods eyes. Let them play power games with their precious web encyclopedia. I have no desire to argue with somebody who might not even be wearing pants.

It’s this kind of anal-retentive activity that will bring the Wikipedia glass towers crashing down. I realize this is a drum beaten here before (last time here), but I see evidence like this almost every time Wikipedia is mentioned and it really damages the desirability of using the site beyond a sometimes quick reference.

None of this suggests that the Wikipedia doesn’t have value in other areas, of course, but counterproductive arguments, declarations and dismissals of sources because they aren’t “professional” enough continues to make Wikipedia something less than comprehensive and attractive to this professional. Or amateur. Hack. Whichever readers prefer.

Did this post make you go hmm?

Maybe Related Posts (plugin generated)

• B34: ‘amateurs’ & pros
• Wikipedia socially inept or socially accurate?
• When complaining about internal links don’t forget Wikipedia
• Netflix 1, Blockbuster 0, Icahn alert
• 29% of traffic sent to Audi from ad campaign came from blogs
• Enough already, you can’t eat awards