54263Wikipedia (WAS: A question about peace)
- Sep 9, 2006At 9:35 PM -0400 9/7/06, Robert Van Rens wrote:
>You've kinda missed my whole point; SPECIFICALLY Wikipedia is open-sourceNot quite true.
>material, able to be modified by ANYONE, regardless of their knowledge of
>the topic. My assertion is that it therefore has limited validity, since
>there's no way to restrict posting and rewriting by anyone for any reason.
Wikipedia does have rules and limits, though as one might expect with
such a large body of information, enforcement is sporadic. In many --
but of course not all -- areas there are people who do keep an eye on
articles in their field of interest, and who jump in when
misinformation is posted and promptly correct it. There are also
rules about what sorts of information may and may not be added to
Wikipedia articles -- for one thing, they would prefer only to have
previously published information with the source cited -- and in the
areas I look at, the monitors have been fairly prompt to flag, if not
remove, things that don't meet those standards. Another big no-no is
violation of the "neutral point of view," i.e. slanting the
information to advance one view over others. These violations, being
more apt to draw complaints, tend to be jumped on even more promptly.
In some cases, an article may be "frozen" and future edits
prohibited, either permanently or until disputes are resolved. Repeat
offenders can also be banned.
So it's true that if you only look at a Wikipedia article this
Thursday at 4:00pm, it may be outrageously wrong in some aspect. But
if you check back next Sunday, it may well have been corrected. This
does not make Wikipedia "reliable" but it explains why its accuracy
overall is able to be rather higher than is sometimes assumed.
O (Lady) Christian de Holacombe , Shire of Windy Meads
+ Kingdom of the West - Chris Laning <claning@...>
http://paternoster-row.org - http://paternosters.blogspot.com
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>