[Web4lib] Authority + Wikipedia

[Jeremy Dunck]

On 10/12/05, Michael McCulley <drweb at san.rr.com> wrote:
> It isn't that at all;
> it's a compilation of what some of we the people believe, and think is
> "knowledge," and without cited, authoritative sources, I cannot with any
> confidence recommend this source of validated knowledge.

Do you get cited, authoritative sources in traditional encyclopedias?

> "Group" access to
> knowledge to edit my words does not guarantee knowledge, nor does group
> publishing of "knowledge" with lots of visits and hits validate knowledge.

The priests know best, then...

> Wikipedia is not an authoritative source for knowledge.

You ever hear that quote from William Gibson:
"The future has already arrived. It's just not evenly distributed yet."

Wikipedia is an unevenly accurate source.  The problem is in judging
whether the particular thing you're interested in is correct.  But
wikipedia is getting better all the time (take a look at that PDF I
previously attached), and fast.

> It's zero sum for me still,  though this does not discount value in the wiki
> idea or platform.


> It's when it (Wikipedia supporters) try to displace or replace "authority"
> with validation that I cannot agree.

On a WP Talk page (link lost, sorry), one person suggested that any
time a person contributes to wikipedia, they become wholly responsible
(thereby lending validation) for the text of the page.  He was laughed
at.  Folks make minor corrections all the time.  Edits != editors,
editors != scholarship.

I take material from WP with a grain of salt, but I find it a deep and
broad source for introduction and orientation on a topic.  Then again,
I've never considered Brittanica (or much of anything) to be a worthy
single source.

No encyclopedia will ever be the sum of human knowledge.  They can
merely be useful, but that's enough.