well, you could use the opportunity to learn instead of taking your ball and going home. I always do...I make plenty of mistakes, get corrected, then learn from it.

When you put information out, you *imply" something with it. When someone takes in your information they *infer* something from it.

It is interesting how the author tries to paint a conspiracy picture with Google, Wikipedia and MySpace as the major players. I don't think it is quite that simple. Wikipedia is a fascinating case study that will be dissected in the years to come.

and btw, in academia when you take the piss out of something, you expect to get hammered back. It is part and parcel of the environment. You should see the arrows I've taken over the years...

Ok. I erred by not pointing out that I didn't write the piece. I was mainly interested in the content, not where it came from. I guess, that to me anyway, it would be pretty clear from the content, that I didn't write that. I'll be more careful. I have edited it to clarify. I'm also not saying the article is right or wrong. Like most things, there is probably an element of each in it. I would imagine that any "conspiracy" between the characters mentioned only has to do with making money for themselves. What first got my interest was that on subjects I am intimately familiar with, I have seen errors in Wikipedia's interpretation of the subject and I see it oft quoted as if it were fact. The same observation holds true for media stories on subjects which I know about from first hand experience.:D

if you see errors on things that you know, then change them...that's the whole point ;)

Wikipedia is about participatory culture. Not passive consumption. It is quite a sea change from the way that "knowledge" has been disseminated in the past. It isn't right or wrong, just different. Has issues to be sure, but you gotta break some eggs to make a crepe.

And wikipedia is no cash cow. Those guys are not getting rich from it. Google on the other hand...

Wait until Google buys Wikipedia and uses it as part of online university for credit, putting many traditional universities out of business. Not that I've pontificated on that or anything in academic circles :p

How can it be a reference unless it is either a primary source or cites primary source material?

You can't really take anything there as right or verified to be correct, unless you look up the proof yourself on a real source. Wiki is pretty much 100% hearsay, far as I am concerned.

One of the criteria for articles is external "proper" references. Articles will be flagged if there isn't supporting literature.

It is what it is. A great "general" source to get a quick idea and some interesting takes on subjects. It is a launching point for more study. As that, it works great. But just as you wouldn't write a paper just referencing an encyclopedia, you can't just reference wikipedia.

Experts become experts when they prove the reigning experts wrong.

...or, in the case of Wiki, they become experts the moment they type over with something seemingly plausible. Which, is not too different that the old school way of finding a publisher.

So now we have the same, but faster. Faster to publish, faster to revise, revise, revise .....

As information becomes more dynamic it also becomes more volatile (consider the drivel of radio; npr...). Yep, stepping into streaming information one better have stout critical-thinking hip-waders.

Disinformation about the possibility of disinformation. Now that's entertainment! :D

+1

I don't see the BS factor being significantly lower in published text. History has always been a subjective art.

Oh, cool. I checked this thread again and saw arrows shootin back and forth, My first thought was that my good natured jab at Todd had unitentionally backfired. I can't tell you how happy I was to see someone else had pissed in his cheerios and not just me.
Carry on ;)

I think there's a few people around here that would feel more comfortable with the Conservapedia...

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

What a hoot!

Check out Bill Clinton.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Bill_Clinton

love the choppy, disconnected sentences. The bit about his stepfather is priceless. I thought Conservatives went to the best schools. :confused:

The things I've looked up in it seem pretty accurate to me, but I'm not sure (if I knew the answer, I wouldn't be looking it up!). Which is surprising to me, given that apparently anyone can type over anyone else, it would seem like it would quickly degrade into total, lengthy nonsense on almost all subjects.

Can someone post a link to a Wikipedia page that has really bad, blatant wrong information on it?

Just like their high school teachers...

Lots of BS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

It's the reverse. People reading it can't stand it being inaccurate, so they go to make it accurate.

It's knowledge management. It's the same concept when building a knowledgebase at work. Everyone working on the articles ensures the most accuracy possible (as opposed to just one person, which oftentimes is somewhat limited).

And the government is out to help me.

LOL ok, sailor. SmileWavy