9 Comments »

1. Dear Mr. Lawson

   I did not “misquote” Mr. Wales. I read that he had said those words in public speeches in the New Yorker article. It’s probably counter to the snide ethic of blogs, but I chose to accept his statement that, despite the unrefuted statement in the New Yorker, he had not said and did not believe those words.

   Michael Gorman

   Comment by Michael Gorman — June 19, 2007 @ 7:03 pm

2. I concur with Prof. Gorman here. He did not misquote me, he was misled by a short report that did not give the full context. But when I gave him the full context, he immediately apologized.

   I am unsure why he now says that the statement in the New Yorker is “unrefuted”. There is no issue of refutation here at all. The New Yorker said that I cite the statement frequently, and of course I do… but left out the context of my full discussion of the issue.

   There are many examples of me joking about this test, and discussing the proper approach to using evidence from Google, in many speeches and talks, and of course the evidence of the actual discussion of the concept in Wikipedia itself is open for anyone to review.

   And a serious review of it reveals quite quickly that neither my position, nor that of Wikipedia, can be reasonably characterized as evidencing anything like the absurd belief that if something is not in Wikipedia, it doesn’t exist.

   Comment by Jimmy Wales — June 19, 2007 @ 8:48 pm

3. Hmm… “misquotation: an incorrect quotation” (define:misquote in google). Interestingly enough, if Gorman had fact-checked with The Wales article in Wikipedia, he might have questioned the quote (Wales is quoted there as saying he trusts google like he trusts a politician).

   Comment by david lee king — June 19, 2007 @ 9:25 pm

4. I found the actual speech transcripts.

   Google :1 Michael Gorman: 0

   Comment by Seth Finkelstein — June 19, 2007 @ 10:32 pm

5. Thanks, Seth. As I said in my comment on your site, I think you are getting to the real problem of how to read a statement like “If you can’t Google it, it doesn’t exist.”

   Comment by Steve Lawson — June 19, 2007 @ 10:46 pm

6. [Note: I emailed Mr. Gorman to try to verify that this comment really comes from him. As we all know, identity can be hard to verify on the internets. He hasn't responded. For now, we'll assume the comment is legit. -SL]

   Thanks for stopping by, Mr. Gorman. I suppose it’s an honor to have the man who wrote “It is entirely possible that [bloggers'] intellectual needs are met by an accumulation of random facts and paragraphs.” imply that I’m being snide.

   Perhaps “misquote” is the right word and perhaps it isn’t (read the quote again, and see what you think: citebite link, original New Yorker article). More the point, it is typical of your style of argumentation, where you don’t engage with real people and what they really said. Instead you prefer to treat other people as easily-parodied cardboard cut-outs, to whom you can attribute whatever opinions you wish. In short, while you lecture us all on the proper uses of authority and research and the like, when it comes right down to it, you prefer ad hominem attacks and ex cathedra pronouncements to actual reasoned, researched arguments.

   There are plenty of perfectly valid critiques that can be made of Google, Wikipedia, etc., if you would just take the time to actually understand what you were talking about first. From reading your opinion pieces, it sounds as if you have never actually used the Internet, but are basing your opinions on things you read in publications like the New Yorker.

   Comment by Steve Lawson — June 20, 2007 @ 9:39 am

7. How do you refute a statement in the New Yorker anyhow?

   Comment by jessamyn — June 20, 2007 @ 11:27 am

8. He would definitely know the meaning of “snide”…

   Comment by Chadwick — June 20, 2007 @ 12:18 pm

9. Note: Jimmy Wales’ comment somehow ended up marked as spam. Glad I checked the filter today.

   Comment by Steve Lawson — June 20, 2007 @ 12:47 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment