[Web4lib] Authority + Wikipedia

[Dobbs, Aaron]

I suspect that the NYT example is a tad oversimplified?  

Prior to recent allegations, I suspect people felt that NYT content was
authoritative because they assumed it was rigorously fact-checked prior
to publication as the "paper of record" or whatever the phrase is/was
that NYT uses as a self-description.

Ergo, it was popular because it had the image of authority.

So, which comes first: the authority image or the popularity?
The NY Post is (er.. was?) popular, but I never got the feeling that it
was all that authoritative.  
Ditto WaPo (imho).

Bingo on the trust issue :)

-Aaron
:-)'

"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing
your temper or your self-confidence."
-Robert Frost 
-----Original Message-----
From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
[mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Dunck
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 10:16 AM
To: Thomale, J
Cc: web4lib at webjunction.org
Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Authority + Wikipedia

<snip>
I don't actually think this is a new phenomenon.  Most people take
pieces published in the NY Times at face value under the assumption
that the paper is popular, has a good reputation, and is therefore
trustworthy.  Of course that's not always right.

The web magnifies a gap between trust and scholarship which has always
been there.

We (individually) can't possible fact-check everything.  Trust enters
into it somewhere.  The public has to trust that librarians are going
to steer them straight, for example.  ;-)
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/