On Friday 19 August 2005 13:10, dissidentnews@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Borek wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 03:28:59 +0200, Roy Schestowitz
>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >> Wikipedia is *so* much better, with their anonymous authorship of
>> >> articles, lack of credibility, no cites, obscure or non-existant
>> >> sources, and ignorant and biased editors.
>> >
>> > I take your point. I agree that such a system would never work, yet it
>> > is more difficult to 'fool' than most. Maybe they can introduce a
>> > mod-point-like system whereby authors earn a measure of credibility.
>>
>> At the same time it have never failed me yet, so it
>> already earned credibility.
>
>
> Hang on a minute few people seem to realize just how Wikipedia works;
> how much it relies on what it terms "reliable sources" for its
> information.
>
> The gist is that the admins have decreed that what is reliable is what
> appears in the mainstream Media, especially newspapers.
These are subjected to more moderation because they are
peer(editor)-reviewed. As I said before, taking into consideration the
likelihood, newspapers are less likely to be false. It's like a technical
report compared with a peer-reviewed publication. Newspapers have a great
deal of reputation in jeopardy. Web sites can be set up by anyone with 10
bucks.
> Thus, according to Wikipedia something is credible if it has appeared
> in print, regardless of whether it is true, or defamation, or sleazy
> tabloid journalism.
Tabloid journalism will typically cover issues that I don't care for. If
Wikipedia says that Nicole Kidman lives in Honolulu and has 15 children, I
couldn't care less.
> More - Wikipedia decrees that you cannot use web sources to counter
> what is in the newspapers. The result is that Wikipedia can contain an
> article which reproduces some sleazy story or rumor about someone
> ("hey, it's been printed so it's reliable!") but you can't use
> information on the Internet to counter such stories.
>
> This leads to unfairness - and so much for their much-vaunted NPOV.
>
> Therefore, I suggest that Wikipedia itself is not credible - it's just
> an Internet extension of the mainstream media. So much for a
> free-thinking, free, web-based *pedia!
Under this assumption that Wikipedia reflects on mainstream media, I would
choose Wikipedia over errant Web searches _any day_.
Roy
|
|
