Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Wiki Once More
Reading through some blogs yesterday I as surprised that the topic of a Wikipedia had been a subject of discussion over Labor Day weekend. This story generally supports my view about the dangers of collaborative trust. The experimenter inserted false information into a wikipedia and waited for someone to correct it. No one did after five days.
This story from The Register casts a wickedly ironic eye on the whole proposition and concludes that a wiki is a potentially useful tool, but that's all. Finally, this entry from a fellow who should know better concludes that wikipedia's have newer and more factual entries than staid old encyclopedias. However, he chose entries that are likely to have updated information and he didn't choose entries that might not, such as cultural factors that go into winemaking.
While the case for a wikipedia is open, I remain skeptical of its overall value and of the value of any publication without a systematic editorial function.
This story from The Register casts a wickedly ironic eye on the whole proposition and concludes that a wiki is a potentially useful tool, but that's all. Finally, this entry from a fellow who should know better concludes that wikipedia's have newer and more factual entries than staid old encyclopedias. However, he chose entries that are likely to have updated information and he didn't choose entries that might not, such as cultural factors that go into winemaking.
While the case for a wikipedia is open, I remain skeptical of its overall value and of the value of any publication without a systematic editorial function.
Comments:
Post a Comment