I was Google searching Bassmintmusic when my search results produced BassMintMusic.com on AboutUs.org. I took a quick look and said, “Oh boy another branch of Wikipedia.” But I was wrong. AboutUs.org is not another branch of Wikipedia.
Based on what I was told when I called AboutUs.org a representative told me AboutUs.org is a separate entity than Wikipedia.org. What a breath of fresh air. A new Wiki created in the spitten image of its predecessor Wikipedia.
Let’s see if I got this right. AboutUs.org scours the Internet through the use of its web bots in search of domains to add to its Wiki. I tried the services. I was able registered in less than one minute, I made changes to a domain name, I searched other domain names through AboutUs.org’s search engine and get this AboutUs.org’s search will automatically, yes automatically (at least based on the searches I performed) create a new article if the domain name you searched is not already listed and it’s a ‘live’ domain. It grabs the code Title, Meta Description, Meta Name, Meta Content info and includes this information in the article. So you are all prepped and ready to roll.
Now based on my Wiki encounters with a few contributors on Wikipedia they have not been ‘great’ nor ‘good’ for that matter. I found that some of the Wikipedia contributors tend to contradict themselves and state rules that are only conducive to the position they are defending at the moment. So I advised our interns at Bassmint Music to discontinue editing articles related to our company or myself on Wikipedia. Wikipedia states that they want to post ‘quality’ and ‘accurate’ articles. How does Wikipedia expect to post quality and accurate articles when in my experience a number of people contributing and editing are uneducated, misinformed and not willing to listen, learn and work with you?
How much ‘quality’ and ‘accuracy’ can be included in an article when some unknown and anonymous contributor claims to have, “reliable sources” and you tell him or her that, “I am that reliable source” you are writing about. “You can’t get any more reliable than me” and they shoot you down and prefer to continue editing the article without your input. Thus resulting in misinformation (which has since been changed) being posted about you and your brand which can cause confusion and have others questioning what’s accurate and what’s not?
How can you trust the quality or accuracy of Wikipedia’s articles? In my opinion and based on my experience I have to question the authenticity of Wikipedia. When you have a professor of a reparable educational institution tell you, you should be careful when referencing Wikipedia’s articles in your papers because of the lack of accuracy. . .well go figure. (For the record no professor ever told me not to use Wikipedia at all.)
In all fairness after I called Wikipedia they agreed to make a few changes to my article and I agreed to see how it goes for a little while. You know give it another chance.
But let’s get back to AboutUs.org. I hope AboutUs.org get’s it right and they have learned from the first go round of a public Wiki and how to stick to and abide by your own rules. Also, for goodness sake I really hope the AboutUs.org contributors “get it right”. Time will tell.
© 2007 Jerry Calliste Jr. & jerrycallistejr.us. All Rights Reserved.