Here's a couple of quotes from the article:
To critics of Wikipedia--which, in a spin on the open-source model, lets anyone create and edit entries--the news was further proof that the service has no accountability and no place in the world of serious information gathering.
"Wikipedia is so often considered authoritative. That must stop now, surely. Every fact in there must be considered partisan, written by someone with a conflict of interest," blogging and podcasting pioneer Dave Winer wrote in his blog. "Further, we need to determine what authority means in the age of Internet scholarship."
So... something like the World Book Encyclopedia or the Encyclopaedia Britannica are more authoritative and more unbiased than Wikipedia? So... if it comes from an established publisher, I don't need to question it?
Hmm... let's see.
An error in one of those printed tombs would last as long as the paper (I've got 30 year old encyclopedias in my bookcase - they look cool). Who would review it? Who would change it? Who would know? Who would care?
An error in Wikipedia would last as long as it takes to correct it. The world can review it. Even Seigenthaler can change it. Anyone could know about it. And there's the whole blogosphere that gives a shit about it all.
Anonymity is a powerful thing. Sometimes the context demands protection for the speaker. But opinion gains weight when it is backed up with a name. But the real power of Wikipedia is fluidity. As long as the system remains fluid, errors will be corrected. Also, I'm hoping that the web culture will always question the source - be it traditional or not.
Tags: Wikipedia
0 comments:
Post a Comment