Wikipedia, Nicholas Carr, Andrew McAfee and Enterprise 2.0 nuked..

Nicholas Carr is currently infected with the wikipediaitis malady. It is a rare affliction, in that it creates an uncontrollable urge to mention wikipedia in almost every post.  I’m afraid that Andrew McAfee’s post from today may bring about a more widespread outbreak. I have caught it, and I expect it to spread rapidly amongst the Enterprise 2.0 community.

Wikipedia nuked Mike Stopforth’s entry on Enterprise 2.0. I thought it was a great start at building a useful reference source, and I was vaguely thinking of contributing myself. “I can’t cut the lawn, dear, because I’m adding to the world’s greatest knowledge store.”

If you look to the deletion discussion Andrew, you are the creator of a:

Neologism of dubious utility. I can find examples of it’s use online but there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on what it means other than “sort of like Web2.0, but businessy

This is a level of arrogance that even I can only dream of aspiring to. 

So other than a couple of articles in HBO and SMR, a good number of people talking about it, companies actually doing it, and people like Ross, who by all accounts makes a good living out of it, what does one need to do to keep an entry?

Oh dear I feel a long post about George Orwell and unthink and peasants and castles coming on. Help.


I see I’m not the only one that this irked…. Dennis McDonald has more.

And Jason too.

4 thoughts on “Wikipedia, Nicholas Carr, Andrew McAfee and Enterprise 2.0 nuked..”

  1. I was somewhat surprised at what I thought was a pretty extreme reaction to an infantile project with only exploratory motives. It feels unfamiliarly autocratic and dictatorial.

  2. “This is a level of arrogance that even I can only dream of aspiring to. ”

    You’re coming close right there, in reaction to it 🙂 If the comments about keeping or removing the article were less arrogant, on either side, it would be easier to use the energy around the topic to produce a better article, rather than a mess of flawed assumptions and half-hearted logical debate.

    I should post meditations on how to criticize wikipedia — or simply how to contribute to it — so that these rounds of chatting are more productive.

  3. Sj,
    Fair comment. It is easy to sit outside wikipedia and poke at it. I think though, you will see that the enterprisey crowd are now working hard to build on the entry. I dont particularily like the 2.0 term, but as the Inkspots once said “It will have to do, until the right thing comes along…

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s