Seems like our buddy GISDirtbag has decided that he’s had it with SlashGeo and wants it removed from PlanetGS. I removed SlashGeo many months ago due to some users complaining that it isn’t a blog. In the end I added it back in mostly due to the promise that they would have more original content. Whether that is the case or not, I’m not getting involved with policing PlanetGS. If the is a blog that goes off topic or ceases regular publication I’ll remove it, but as long as posts are geospatially related I’m not going to remove anyone. Defining what is a blog is hard enough so I’m going to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion.
OK, now that is settled I can rant about Wikipedia. I’m not shocked to see that ssomeone would add their own site to an alleged encyclopedia article since Wikipedia is all about self promotion and not about accuracy. I could go on and on with examples as to why Wikipedia is worthless, but I’m sure you’ve all heard the arguments before. Frankly any encyclopedia that allows people to advertise on an article webpage isn’t reliable at all, especially when those adding the links are personally involved.
The GIS Wikipedia article is such a mess I wouldn’t direct anyone there in the first place even if I trusted the sources. A couple years back I tried to correct an article about a topic I am very familiar with and had to battle some loser who had way too much time on their hands over the content. Wikipedia is a place where the most persistent people with the most time to waste control what is said. I’ve washed my hands of Wikipedia and everyone else should too. Take the List of GIS software page. Look at the descriptions of the software, they read like ads for their respective programs, but there are some much worse than others. Take a look at KMLer indented under ESRI as if it is associated with them. Heck click on the link and you get an ad for KMLer right inside Wikipedia. What a freaking joke of an encyclopedia that has ads. I guess users are supposed to alert the powers that be at Wikipedia, but why should we help them if they can’t stop people from staking out claims to articles that they aren’t authorities on, let along people spaming their websites and software themselves in alleged articles.
Side note, KMLer is the king of spammers. When I posted an article on Arc2Earth, a whole bunch of comments showed up claiming that Arc2Earth was a waste of money and KMLer could do more and was free. I spend the better part of a week battling those KMLer folks trying to keep their comments off the site.
Anyway, I honestly don’t care if anyone fixes the GIS articles on Wikipedia as they are of no value anyway. GIS.com is more trustworthy than Wikipedia and that is saying something. And spamming Wikipedia with links to your own website or product is slimy to be the least. Either your product/website is strong enough to stand on its own and will get added into Wikipedia on its own merit, or you need to work harder at making your product/website better.
12 Comments
Hi James, As the main enthusiast behind slashgeo, here are some reactions.
On the PlanetGS side, I do believe we add content. In the last few weeks, as an example, I added a few stories about my GeoTec attendance. I sometimes post stories from mailing lists (not duplicated on PlanetGS). There is also more and more pertinent comments on slashgeo. I do not post unrelated posts. But it is true, I want slashgeo.org to be an aggregator, such as slashdot.org is (and All Points Blogs to some extent).
As for Wikipedia. I agree, wikipedia GIS article are a mess. There was already numerous link spams on those pages. I think slashgeo.org is a pertinent link for anyone wanting to get only the few most important news items in the geospatial industry. Some disagree it seems.
Obviously, I haven’t made friends today. What saddens me is I’m doing this for the community. I spent almost 2000$ of personal money to maintain slashgeo (see our open budget on slashgeo’s page) and thousands of personal hours. There is no ads on slashgeo and it has no revenue. I am doing this because I believe it can be useful. I have helped doing some translation for the OSGeo. I founded and managed the Applied-GIS-RS mailing list. I created the ARSIST table and gave it to the community under the Gnu Free Documentation License. I try to contribute to GDAL/OGR, QGIS (e.g. with bug reports). I am not Evil (or don’t believe I am!
. I’ll try not to get discouraged…
Hi, James. Thanks to you. Your publications are very impressive and add additional colors to my grayscale life.
I make quote and links on http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php/Number/512849/ I am sure Google Earth users will be very interested in your thoughts.
Our KMLer is not a commercial project. It is additional for make good GE projects.
Huh? What does being commercial or not have anything to do with spamming wikipedia?
If the GE users want to know my thoughts they can read it here every day.
Valery, you got caught spamming Wikipedia so admit to it. ArcGIS doesn’t even deserve a page in wikipedia IMO so to think that your little extension does is laughable. I won’t argue with you on it if it useful or not, but you imply that KMLer is more important to GIS than even ESRI’s own extensions by editing the wikipedia.
Shame.
Classic, I took a look at his Wikipedia username. Been busy spamming as you can see. What I find very funny is he added KMLer to the GIS Software page under “Notable commercial or proprietary GIS software”. What does it say when the writer of KMLer decides that his/her own software is notable.
Says Wikipedia is not impartial. If i had gotten off the turnip truck and didn’t know a thing about KML/Google Earth/GIS, I’d think the world revolves around KMLer. Pretty bad…
I think ArcGIS it is interest software for developers (>300 of larges extensions and >3000 of little). I think need make normal structure only. As developer i see next ArcGIS (ArcObjects) extensions - ESRI native extensions (list) - owner extensions (list and small self pages of authors with examples) Difference only by $ and free property it is not solution. For my more interest AOI arcobjects. Also, i not place links to Wikipedia, only make little updates of text and pictures only and view structure of links as datasource. Structure of gis texts before poor. Now also poor. And delete pages not make it best. I love create new objects. This discussions near “war with level of places in tree” not interest and grayscale also. I delete now post from bbs forum. Sorry, maybe problem with my poor english.
You fucking right Valery, your english is shit
Very nice site! http://www.sis.utk.edu/Members/derik/2.html
I just finished reading the Wikipedia article on Geographic Information Systems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_information_system. I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. I have been working with GIS off and on now for about 7 years. Yet this article gave me a fairly short and concise yet informative explanation of GIS that revealed things of which I was not aware of. Even ESRI’s book “Modeling Our World” was not as interesting and informative. I have also found the same thing in other articles I’ve read such as the ones on Thomas Paine, (“Either lead, follow or get out of the way.”) Patton, Ticonderoga, and Bull Halsey. Understandably it is rather unique to build an encyclopedia by means of anonymous contributors, and this has kept wikipedia from being accepted by the DoD as an authoritative source. However, it seems to me that the information thus provided can be used as a starting point for an individual’s own research, which one should be doing anyway. I also noticed that when there is a dispute of fact, Wikipedia will indicate that such is the case, like in the article on the Ostrogoths. It is also a quick and easy reminder of facts that you know you know but can’t remember, (like who said surrender “in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress”.) Anyway that is my two cents worth. Wikipedia is good for what it is supposed to do. If a person wants something more authoritative, they should do their own proper research including a number primary sources.
I just finished reading the Wikipedia article on Geographic Information Systems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_information_system. I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. I have been working with GIS off and on now for about 7 years. Yet this article gave me a fairly short and concise yet informative explanation of GIS that revealed things of which I was not aware. Even ESRI’s book “Modeling Our World” was not as interesting and informative. I have also found the same thing in other articles I’ve read such as the ones on Thomas Paine, (“Either lead, follow or get out of the way.”) Patton, Ticonderoga, and Bull Halsey. Understandably it is rather unique to build an encyclopedia by means of anonymous contributors, and this has kept wikipedia from being accepted by the DoD as an authoritative source. However, it seems to me that the information thus provided can be used as a starting point for an individual’s own research, which one should be doing anyway. I also noticed that when there is a dispute of fact, Wikipedia will indicate that such is the case, like in the article on the Ostrogoths. It is also a quick and easy reminder of facts that you know you know but can’t remember, (like who said surrender “in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress”.) Anyway that is my two cents worth. Wikipedia is good for what it is supposed to do. If a person wants something more authoritative, they should do their own proper research including a number primary sources.
I don’t why you’re fussed over Slashgeo being a blog or not. It’s clearly a tickertape site and extremely useful too. I never have thought of it as a blog and i don’t think Alexandre does either.
Looks like the wikipedia entry has been modified since this thread started, presumably it’s ok now?
I would have thought that if you wanted to build some support to some changes and run into arguments with another editor. Post your changes here and let your readers back you up.
I did wonder if your link to gis.com was a bit tongue-in-cheek. Presumably it’s useful for an introduction. For us oldies in the industry i think Manifold’s help pages are an excellent resource for all matters that i kind of forget – like projection details. Also, Smith, Goodchild & Longley’s Spatial Analysis Online is an absolutely fantastic resource.
oh man, my apologies. Just saw the date of this thread. Damn rss readers. They just make everything seem new.
4 Trackbacks
SlashGeo vs GISdirtbag – and the gloves come off!
Looks like things are heating up a bit online between gis blogger "GISdirtbag" and Slashgeo… not that this is totally relevant or even of interest …
[...] He (or she?) seems to have disappeared off the face of the blogosphere. After stirring the pot with several posts (see example), he is gone. [...]
[...] has been impressed with the entries relating to GIS and spatial technologies. James Fee dedicated a blog entry about his view on wikipedia’s GIS article, saying ” The GIS Wikipedia article is such a [...]
[...] have your edit quickly removed from the site? I certainly have, and I’m not alone (see here, here, here and here for just a few examples). What you tend to get on Wikipedia, is not a collection of [...]