> As long as you don't instantly treat it as true. AFAIK anyone can write
> anything on a wiki, so IWSTM there's no facility for fact checking.
Well, this is one of those grey areas I think.....
OTOH, yeah, there's no "official" fact-checking going on...
AOTOOH, wikis are subject to the largest fact-checking network that
exists...in a way...
This really reminds me of the debate between bloggers and the Network
News...
And like Smitty pointed out, even the quality of those "official"
encyclopedias is varied and contains errors....
I like to think of the wiki system as being self error-correcting. I'm
sure we've all experienced this form of "instant correction" at one time
or another on the Net...LOL
Another form of this self-correcting principle is the "popularity"
test...If a wiki develops a reputation overtime of being inaccurate,
inconsistent, etc., (and word spreads fairly quickly on the Net) it just
won't survive to any meaningful extent.
I believe, just now thinking aboutthis caually, that this debate is
going to lead toa new form of wiki...called...ummm...priki or
something...It will be a "peer-reviewed" open-source wiki formerly known
as the Univ. Of Michigan library....LOL...j/k
But, really, I can see peer-reviewed wikis popping up all over...
The enivronment will be not all tht different than a college campus with
all the debating and theory testing...hmmm, peer-reviewed theory wikis...
It seems like what the other originating partner, that Smitty mentioned,
is shooting for...the two probably had different visions of how it all
turned out, with this other man not liking the criticism. Reminds of we
I first started cruising around the internet way back when. Usenet was
loaded with rude academics, many spewing venom over our presence in
their formerly "exclusive" domain. I miss the old BBS's I must say...:)
Fidonet just couldn't compete though...not fast enough with that QWK
packet scheme they have...
> If I see something in Encyclopedia Britannica, I believe it if it's a hard
> fact. If Encyclopedia Britannica had all knowledge I'd use it exclusively.
> Problem is, there are tons of facts and ideas not in Encyclopedia Britannica,
> so one muse cast a wider net, including Wikipedia. Then one fact checks.
That's true. One usually expects to be able to quote as many sources as
possible to back a point...
> It's kinda like using a pre-written program vs. writing your own. If I use
> grep, I don't check it for bugs -- someone else already did. But if I write
> my own program to perform a grep-like functionality, I bug check it.
True. But if you then shared that with me, I probably wouldn't check it.
You already did....:)
I'd be watching though!
So really I guess it boils down to a personal responsibility thing. Get
the info form wiki, use it, but check for corroboration from another
source before using. If one doesn't one should be prepared for any
resulting consequence.
The debate will never end though. The only absolutes are found in
mathematics.
Well, provided you confine your operations to one dimension...:)
Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:08:58 EDT