Comments

I like Wikipedia because it appears to have the least "spin" of any information source I can find. I wonder if others are using it for the same reason.

Posted by John O'Leary at March 11, 2007 12:46 AM

I prefer objectivity and, if there must be a bias, that it be at least an academic bias with editors and other contributors properly vetted. Case in point is the recent Wikipedia problem with an editor who passed himself off as a tenured professor of theology, but was in fact a 24 year old college dropout. I don't care if Wikipedia (or any "wiki-type" system) works the pure open-source format, but that needs to be taken into account and therefore completely discarded as a source of accurate information or truth.
Consider also the growth of "wiki culture," wherein the more people believe and propound something, the more it is accepted as fact. I think that is similar to Hitler's Big Lie idea. Leave your wikis where they belong--along with all the other urban legends and folklore. I'm too much the trained historian and teacher to be able to consider anything with the word wiki in it to be a source of fact, truth, or even proper research.

Posted by Mike at March 13, 2007 4:37 PM

Geez Mike, you need to relax.

Last time you asked for directions, are you sure the person providing them was an "expert". Heck, I know mistakes on Map Quest, but I still use it.

Ever get advice from friends, parents, neighbors? Did you ask them for their CV before you listened to them?

How do experts become experts? They watch things and talk to other people who are involved. Expert is just experience. Yes, fraud is possible in the "wiki" world, but I've also seen people on 60 minutes who worked as doctors and had papers on the wall, but who as it turns out were frauds, so fraud can happen in the academic world as well.

I think I'll look up urban legends in the Wikipedia and see what it tells me...

Posted by Dave Holland at March 14, 2007 4:15 PM

And actually, a good deal of written history always came from biased sources... such as court scribes.

Posted by Ramla A. at March 17, 2007 6:46 AM

Oops! The word "always" in my comment above is a redundant mannerism.
Read: "And actually, a good deal of written history came from biased sources... such as court scribes."

Posted by Ramla A. at March 17, 2007 6:48 AM

The argument that everything is bad, therefore you must accept this new form despite it's "badness" is not very logical, but whatever...

Click on the links in the post and objectively judge the quality of what you find. Then come back and talk to me about the vital importance of the wiki idea. Most of it looks like it is the product of third-graders.

Collaboration, of the "mass" kind or otherwise, has been around forever and is nothing new. Good companies do it, good organizations like churches and civic groups do it. There are a few new tools avaialble to help the process, but it isn't a revolution or anything, despite the hype.

Posted by Mike at March 17, 2007 11:16 AM

I adore Wiki's because they give me quick and easy access to the worst possible opinion. If my views in any way line up with the braying crowd I immediately know I am incorrect. Perfect stupidity is the only thing the masses have ever, and will ever, be good for.

Posted by John at March 19, 2007 8:10 PM