[Web4lib] Authority + Wikipedia

[K.G. Schneider]

> I've written a new article about Authority...
> 
> http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000057.php
> 
> ...that folks on this list may enjoy. Just don't show it to any
> old-fashioned librarians :-)

It's interesting that all too often even the most reasonable objections or
concerns about Wikipedia (or Google, or Apple, or Technorati, or...) are
predetermined to be old-fashioned. 

So o.k., call me old-fashioned, but if I substituted Britannica for
Wikipedia in Morville's article, the piece would have no merit, because the
argument is not evidence-driven. Much postulation, yes, and much reference
to current vogues (is it possible to write about the Web without mentioning
Google?), but there's not a whit of fact sullying its assertions. It's as if
Morville said, "Intelligent design is good--and if you disagree with me,
you're old-fashioned!" or "WMDs really are hidden in Iraq--and if you
disagree with me, you're old-fashioned!" 

If there is an argument to be made for Wikipedia, it has to be made with
solid facts and impervious arguments, and preferably without advance warning
that to debate its merits is to be old-fashioned. That preemptive strike,
not brisk merit-based discussion by information professionals, is what is
truly outdated. 

Karen G. Schneider
kgs at bluehighways.com