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!

Alan