____/ BearItAll on Monday 20 August 2007 11:13 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> ____/ BearItAll on Monday 20 August 2007 09:55 : \____
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Spanish TV Channels Vandalize Wikipedia
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | The public station introduced falsehoods into the Wikipedia entry for
>>>> | John Lennon; the private one vandalized the Elvis Presley entry. Both
>>>> | stations said they were performing an "experiment" to check the
>>>> | reaction time of Wikipedia. Both articles were promptly corrected by
>>>> | other editors.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/18/2324217&from=rss
>>>>
>>>
>>> It isn't vandalism, wikipee 'A free encyclopedia that anyone can edit'
>>> opens itself up so that anyone can add/edit items. So absolutely anyone
>>> can put in their personal opinion, or a more interesting tale, or
>>> something more fun than the truth, in place of what ever was there
>>> previously.
>>>
>>> wikipee is a daft idea in my view, you can't actually trust that any of
>>> the articles are correct. Then when some 'names' go in we get moans, we
>>> got moans because the CIA edited a couple, Spanish TV edited one, but if
>>> Bob Jones from the fish shop goes in and says 'George Bush: a dress
>>> wearing president of the USA', then that's alright because Bob is just an
>>> ordinary person so he can say anything at all in WikiPee. Just so long as
>>> experts don't come in and start corrupting content with the truth.
>>
>> The nature of a lot of information is that it cannot be subjective. It is
>> not physics or mathematics. When it comes to history, there are several
>> angles as well and one side of the argument can be made more vocal than
>> another. What makes traditional encyclopedias more credible _in
>> principle_? Opinions and vandalism are not the same thing.
>>
>
> History was a science, the science involved doing the best with the
> available information to document a situation. Not always correct, but
> given the information available at the time of writing, was the best truth
> available. Leaders the world over took history and the recording of events
> very seriously. Many an item could have been destroyed, to save face for
> the speaker, but it simply wasn't done in normal circumstances.
>
> But when the Romans did try it, they had to wipe out all traces of the Celts
> that they could find to cover up the fact that the Romans had altered
> recorded history. That was how seriously such things were taken.
>
> Wikipee, is not a science, it is a lot of people who believe they know
> something about the subjects, because they saw something on TV about it, or
> maybe an artical in the Sun newspaper. The Simpson's covered an interesting
> artical last week about women drivers, perhaps I should go into wikipee and
> edit it.
>
> No scientific accuracy is needed, no authority to tell you your input is
> wrong, no locks to stop known truths from being altered. It is a false
> history and record.
Remember that Wikipedia keeps track of all the changes (diffs) as well, as if
perspective on an historical changes over time, this can easily be studied.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Quote when replying in non-real-time dialogues"
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 119 total, 1 running, 118 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
