IT Skeptic bumped off Wikipedia

Does the use of Google Ads on this page reduce its credibility? [as if it had any] Is this blog pure opinion? And if so does opinion have any place on Wikipedia? Comments please.

These are questions provoked by recent events. I am most interested in your opinions.

A while ago the IT SKeptic blog was put on Wikipedia as an external link to the entry on ITIL. There is a vigilante who goes about the Wikipedia removing any site that uses Google Adsense, so the link was removed. You can read about the ensuing discussion here (see "criticism").

Now the IT Skeptic has no pretensions to academic rigour. But then the whole ITIL domain lacks any academic rigour (another future topic). Nor am I an expert on anything much. But obviously some people think I have a point, and perhaps that point should be part of any balanced description of ITIL.

I'm not sure that opinion should be on Wikipedia, but if not then an awful lot of the current content of Wikipedia is called into question.

Remarkably, I have no strong views either way on the whole affair (other than being extremely annoyed by a pompous anonymous pedant). What do you think about the whole thing?


Do Google ads undermine the credibility of this site?

Time to close off the poll on "Do Google ads undermine the credibility of this site?". I think the results are clear enough for me. A fifth of readers don't like them (or less: objectors are more likely to vote). They are staying.

21% (9 votes)
45% (19 votes)
Don't care
19% (8 votes)
What Google ads?
14% (6 votes)
Total votes: 42

The value of Adwords

I think your adwords programme doesn't degrade the quality of the content but does negatively impact on the design and presentation, and thus the delivery of the message.

I am curious as to whether you get sufficient revenue from it to warrant having it here?

(By the way I have just discoverred this site and love it. Thanks.)


You mean the banner across the middle of the content? I don't much like the aesthetics either but it is the ONLY significant source of revenue on the site (but still only just covers the hosting costs)

No, blog's really don't

No, blog's really don't belong there. Wikipedia is fact, not opinion.

I do happen to share most of your opinions in fact, but that doesn't mean that they should be represented on the wiki. If the policy was any different, it would disintegrate into one long message board type mess.

As you state yourself, wiki gives a "description of ITIL". Your opinion, and my opinion, are not descriptions of ITIL. They are opinions of ITIL.

I agree in principle

I agree in principle: an encyclopedia is not a forum. However in fact there is a grey area. There is no need of opinion around most things, but there is a need around ideas that are still maturing and are undecided. If there is debate in the comunity over what is or isn't fact then Wikepedia needs to reflect that. So there is a section on criticism of ITIL, the article cites a newspaper column by Dean Meyer that is pure opinion but is retained because being published by CIO mag apparently gives it credibility, and I can point you to blogs cited elsewhere on Wikipedia where strong debate exists.
So I wish this issue were black and white but I think it isn't.

Thankyou for commenting, and welcome!

Syndicate content