On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 22:11 -0700, Alan Dayley wrote:
> Craig White wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 18:40 -0700, Alan Dayley wrote:
> >> Thank you all.  I should have thought of wikipedia!
> > ----
> > Just wondering...I occasionally run into people that dismiss wikipedia
> > out of hand citing a lack of accuracy. Needless to say, I get a little
> > excited because even when I suggest that they are capable of fixing
> > inaccuracies or adding missing information, they are defeatists who
> > simply don't get it.
> > 
> > I would bet others run into this kind of person...who doesn't believe
> > that it's accurate unless it's printed in Groliers or Britannica or some
> > pay service. How do you deal with people like this?
> 
> I try to express these ideas:
> 
> - They are correct, it is likely that some of the information in
> Wikipedia articles is wrong.
> 
> - Since Wikipedia requires references and places that need them get
> flagged, references in Wikipedia can be used as a starting point for
> research.
> 
> - Ask if they believe everything they read on websites but only doubt
> Wikipedia.
> 
> - The same person can enter incorrect information in a Wikipedia
> article, that everyone can edit, and publish the same incorrect
> information on a website only they can edit.  Ask why the later is more
> credible than the former.
> 
> - Having said that, ask if they have ever watched or read a news article
>  that they knew to be incorrect.  Ask if they think it odd that printed
> encyclopedia sets issue correction addenda from time to time.  Errors,
> or at least, mistakes are in all sources of information.
> 
> - Point out that waiting for addenda or a new addition is far less
> useful than an encyclopedia that can be changed nearly immediately.
> 
> - There is great value in "experts," even true experts, writing peer
> reviewed articles.  There are many avenues such as journals and other
> publications for their contributions.  There is also great value in
> allowing people with direct knowledge, though perhaps without official
> credentials, to publish their knowledge to the world.  The
> democratization of knowledge sharing is very important in ways we do not
> know just as Gutenberg probably only had a imagining of the power of
> what he created.  Wikipedia, or at least such a concept, is an important
> part of that.
> 
> - Change and incorrect information are everywhere, all the time.
> Wikipedia simply exposes that truth to everyone instead of masking it,
> even if the mask is not purposeful.
> 
> That's all I can think of right now.  If all of that is to "high minded"
> for you or them, just tell them it's fun to participate!
----
I think everyone feels pretty much as I do but it occurs to me that it
is simply about trust of the Internet at large and is somewhat
generational.

Thus in the end, it's not really about wikipedia at all but rather that
those who are less committed to technology consider Internet sources of
information, be they blogs, news sources to be more fungible and the
traditional sources such as newspapers, magazines, television news to be
more tangible. I think there is a fairly simple metric for this...do
they pull out the Yellow Pages when they want a phone number or do they
just google it?

So while sitting here with this yet unfinished e-mail when I trip across
this link on dailykos blog (not one that I routinely read by the
way)...Are Blogs Becoming Respectable and Legitimate?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/17/72750/1129/228/458441
(I didn't write the headline) but it makes a very obvious point...that
is that if you don't use the Internet for research/facts, you are
probably not making a very good argument.

In that blog, a link is given to Jay Rosen from 2005 blog titled
"Bloggers vs. Journalists Is Over"
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/01/21/berk_essy.html

I guess that the issues of credibility and trustworthiness are simply
self-evident and those that doubt will simply doubt because that is what
they choose to do. To simply discount the medium is not a choice that
informed people are going to make. It is reasonable to process the
information with a critical eye but those same rules should apply to all
forms of information, both tangible and fungible, in physical print and
via URL.

Craig

---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss