the great totalitarian American
monument to mediocrity,
every page the same, without quirk or humour,
presented like dead fish, lacking personality -
nothing stimulating or fresh -
it sits like a vast sub-educational tumour
policed by goon-bots: algorithms made flesh.
3 comments:
Although it is a not-for-profit Foundation (effectively an NGO) it invaded the world much more quickly and penetratingly than Coca-Cola, an apparently-harmless internet virus which is treated as the fountain (or bromide stream) of all wisdom.
I too despair at the clunky English that it offers me every time I use it. I am wary of how accurate the information it gives is too. I assume that where there is political self interest then the entries are edited like CV's, tailored to a particular present day need. Wikipedia might be better about less disputable historical information. I assume, though I don't know, that it is clunky in every language the entries are written in; 'clunky' is it's style.
To read more than two Wikipedia entries together is an excellent cure for insomnia, though they might diminish your will to live. The prose is style-less on purpose. The content on non-technical subjects dubious and sometimes, in my experience, lamentable.
There was once the old Encyclopædia Britannica, with brilliant - sometimes outrageous - articles. You knew what you were getting. Wikipedia offers you the wine of wisdom but delivers Coca-Cola.
Post a Comment