On Feb 18, 2008 10:44 AM, Craig White wrote: > > 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? Hi Craig, 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. Secondly, print is /durable/ and whatever you put into print, you cannot change later, which also adds a lot to its credibility. 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. :) -jmz http://joshuazeidner.blogspot.com/?ref=plug-main-list > > 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 > -- --------------------------------------------------- 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