[Web4lib] Problems with Wikipedia

[Michael McCulley]

Tim,

I happen to still be in the credible author = non-anonymous camp, and while
another tough issue for Wikipedia, I don't find in the real world (vs.
academic disciplines and debates) much discredit for author = known
quantity; that can be skewed, mis-applied, disregarded, or disputed - but,
it has a chance to be respected, and given "credibility." A known author can
be part of the quest for Truth. And it depends..

Quote.

    [I]t is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but
how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they
are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition.

.Unquote

Source: Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (Book-of-the-Month
Club, 1995), p. 527.
Online source: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

I believe you might be confusing argument-from-authority with my poor aim
for endorsing known authority; I mean a basis for validity and
trustworthiness, and we respect authority (in the main) in our society and
civilization, especially deeming valid that authority that comes from our
known "experts." But, this is one of the common back-and-forth debates the
Wikipedia folks have with others who don't agree with their system or
community values.

I can't honestly give credibility to anonymous anything, but maybe that's
just me.  And, there is no disconnect in my mind between having critical
thinking *and* respecting known credible authorship and works. They are not
mutually exclusive, to me.

This is heading (or has been) o.t. for Web4Lib, so feel free to e-mail me
offlist to discuss further. I highly respect your views insights, and
knowledge, though with some of the views, I may disagree...

Best,
Michael

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

Quote of the Moment:
 It's 11:00pm...do you know what your cats are shredding?
Thursday, January 04, 2007 7:10:24 PM 
 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org 
>[mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Tim Spalding
>Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:03 PM
>To: web4lib at webjunction.org
>Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Problems with Wikipedia
>
>I do not think Wikipedia should be relied upon in most scholarly
>contexts. (It's lousy in Classics, that's for sure.) But examine the
>final paragraph of the Williams College Libraries page:
>
>"Without knowing who wrote the article, it is not possible to judge
>whether the author's writing is worthy of respect, or to critique his
>or her motivations or qualifications. In short, without a known
>author, Wikipedia articles cannot be considered authoritative."
>
>Is this critical thinking at Williams? Surely the
>argument-from-authority is as wrong now as it ever was-"Aristotle said
>it" is no argument at all, and "some English prof said it" is
>considerably worse. The same goes for the notion that, if you know the
>author, you can "critique his or her motivations." And why stop at
>motivations? I hear Prof. McGowan is Welsh-case closed!
>
>High school is for looking stuff up and spitting it back-bad high
>school anyway. After high school, you should go beyond that. When you
>get down to it *everything* must be suspect. Critical thinking and
>source criticism have always been basic to academic inquiry. You go to
>college in part to learn that there are no "authoritative"
>shortcuts-no royal road to truth and quality, be it collaborative
>production or Ipse dixit. If your library tells you otherwise, don't
>believe it.
>
>PS: And did they choose postmodernism, with its critique of authority
>and even knowledge to be funny, or what?