Comment The inherent 'understanding' of Wikipedia (Score 1) 283
The fundamental premise on which Wikipedia operates is simply that there is no such thing as 'expertise' or cultural importance differentials in the world, and what really matters is viewpoints.
Previous posters are correct - there is no PhD in (to quote) Happy Days-ology. To some people, a thorough examination on the pantheon of Pokemon is just as valuable as, if not more than, the accuracy of any reports of anyone's death, be it Sinbad's or Ken Lay's. For anyone to say differently invokes flamewar. Validity of a topic is apparently a highly subjective characteristic, and that's fine.
But if that means no favoritism, if that means that each and every topic in Wikipedia is of equal 'importance', it means that Wiki users must be willing to accept that because there aren't experts in every field, maybe it means that they can't expect experts for every topic. Since there can't be experts for every topic, it's displaying an unfair bias to have experts on any topic. Therefore, everyone and anyone can post anything they like on any topic, regardless of experience, education, or current medication. And it opens up Wikipedia, and its users and editors, to what has been described
Professors on campuses across the US are beginning to ban references to Wiki entries in any papers, simply because of the inherent instability (not necessarily inaccuracies) of the site.
I concede the wide number of reports regarding Wikipedia's relative accuracy vs. standard sources (encyclopedias, so on) but I have two counters. One, the accuracy of any given Wiki article is subject to a significantly greater fluctuation than any printed book; just because it was right yesterday doesn't mean it is today. Two, the "errors per unit" also included entries on topics not included in standard reference sources (the TV shows, cartoons, and so on) and therefore, statistically speaking, the more academic sources' errors have a greater impact on the error rate.
Ultimately, the accuracy of Wikipedia, or any other potential reference, is only as accurate and trustworthy as its contributors. Only if the contributors are known and credentialed can a source proclaim itself as trustworth, but such a process would violate the "democracy of truthiness" proposed and promoted by a Wiki culture.
If I want to know about physics, I go ask a physicist. If I want to know about music, I go ask a musician. Yes, it means checking with different sources (there's no such thing as true one-stop shopping!) but it also means that if what I'm doing matters I can feel much better about the conclusions I draw from the information.
Previous posters are correct - there is no PhD in (to quote) Happy Days-ology. To some people, a thorough examination on the pantheon of Pokemon is just as valuable as, if not more than, the accuracy of any reports of anyone's death, be it Sinbad's or Ken Lay's. For anyone to say differently invokes flamewar. Validity of a topic is apparently a highly subjective characteristic, and that's fine.
But if that means no favoritism, if that means that each and every topic in Wikipedia is of equal 'importance', it means that Wiki users must be willing to accept that because there aren't experts in every field, maybe it means that they can't expect experts for every topic. Since there can't be experts for every topic, it's displaying an unfair bias to have experts on any topic. Therefore, everyone and anyone can post anything they like on any topic, regardless of experience, education, or current medication. And it opens up Wikipedia, and its users and editors, to what has been described
Professors on campuses across the US are beginning to ban references to Wiki entries in any papers, simply because of the inherent instability (not necessarily inaccuracies) of the site.
I concede the wide number of reports regarding Wikipedia's relative accuracy vs. standard sources (encyclopedias, so on) but I have two counters. One, the accuracy of any given Wiki article is subject to a significantly greater fluctuation than any printed book; just because it was right yesterday doesn't mean it is today. Two, the "errors per unit" also included entries on topics not included in standard reference sources (the TV shows, cartoons, and so on) and therefore, statistically speaking, the more academic sources' errors have a greater impact on the error rate.
Ultimately, the accuracy of Wikipedia, or any other potential reference, is only as accurate and trustworthy as its contributors. Only if the contributors are known and credentialed can a source proclaim itself as trustworth, but such a process would violate the "democracy of truthiness" proposed and promoted by a Wiki culture.
If I want to know about physics, I go ask a physicist. If I want to know about music, I go ask a musician. Yes, it means checking with different sources (there's no such thing as true one-stop shopping!) but it also means that if what I'm doing matters I can feel much better about the conclusions I draw from the information.
