Wikipedia objections (Was: Re: zImage compressed with what?)

[Joshua Zeidner]

On Feb 18, 2008 2:34 PM, Craig White <craigwhite at azapple.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 11:52 -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote:
>
> >   I've actually done a bit of work in the area of web-to-print media
> > and the situation is somewhat complex.  While the inertia of habit
> > certainly has a lot to do with peoples tendency to favor print, there
> > are some other important considerations.  Traditional print media is
> > not under jurisdiction of DMCA, and as a whole the laws dealing with
> > libel, etc. in print are more strict, so there are very real tangible
> > reasons to consider print as more credible.
> ----
> I simply don't connect libel laws and the burdens of proof requirements
> when considering the differences between print & URL based sources as
> any indicator or assurance of technical accuracy/credibility.

  Well there is, in both the case of DMCA/libel law AND durability
factor that there is /more incentive/ to maintain a high level of
veracity.

> I don't
> see how the issues intersect at all but rather see them as artifacts of
> the fact that law evolves slowly. I think this issue was visited
> recently when Andrew Thomas/Dennis Wilenchik tried to institute charges
> against the New Times publisher/editor for publishing Sheriff Joe's home
> address online which apparently still is on the books as a crime but not
> in print.

  yes and people post that kind of information all the time on the
net... and does anyone ever blow it up to that level?  DMCA has a
'safe harbor' provision that essentially eliminates all liability for
site owners in the case a user may infringe on libel law, etc.  there
is a bit of activity in this area right now...

> ----
> >   Secondly, print is
> > /durable/ and whatever you put into print, you cannot change later,
> > which also adds a lot to its credibility.
> ----
> and yet, it is trivial to make exactly the opposite argument...that as
> facts become known/better known/made clear/etc. that information does
> indeed morph over time and becomes infinitely less valuable over time if
> it is fixed in print.

  the question isn't really value Im raising here... its just how
print works as opposed to net-based media.

> ----
> >   as far as Wikipedia goes, there are a lot of unsung problems and
> > grievances amongst the Wikipedia user community.  Its not quite the
> > paradise of information Jimbo Wales makes it out to be.  :)
> ----
> I have no knowledge of the amount of claims to inaccuracies of
> wikipedia, nor to the extent or the grievousness of inaccuracies.

  it does seem that everyone has drunk the Wikipedia Kool-aid...  I'll
say this: there is a lot going on behind the curtain at Wikipedia.

  -jmz


-- 
http://joshuazeidner.blogspot.com/