[Web4lib] Authority + Wikipedia

[Michael McCulley]

On this thread, the "authority" behind Wikipedia, is, as I see it, "we the
people." Now I love we the people, and I like we the people. I just don't
think anyone and everyone that makes up we the people should be having
"authority" to publish freely --without any authoritative (see that word?)
review-- what they call an encyclopedia of knowledge. 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. "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.

Wikipedia is not an authoritative source for knowledge.

You can see my posts on this issue before, and I don't disagree yet with
myself ;) ..
http://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia&domains=drweb.typepad.com&sitesearc
h=drweb.typepad.com

It's zero sum for me still,  though this does not discount value in the wiki
idea or platform. There are things we can do with group sites, group
editing, group "authority." A validated encyclopedia in the current form is
not one of them I could support.

It's when it (Wikipedia supporters) try to displace or replace "authority"
with validation that I cannot agree. Having 3 people view my words and
"agree" with them isn't authoritative review. It's like scanning for typos.
It might or might not find the errors in the knowledge.

Best,
DrWeb

-- 
P. Michael McCulley aka DrWeb
mailto:drweb at san.rr.com
San Diego, CA 
http://drweb.typepad.com/

Quote of the Moment:
 -The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it
made.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005 5:46:58 PM