Errors and omissions corrected below.

Too many children, nieces and a nephew running around here.  And I'm tired.

Alan

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.

- The same person can publish the same incorrect information in an
encyclopedia or journal, even after peer review.  Ask why they expect it
to be completely correct.

- Ask how many people review an traditionally published article compared
to how many review a Wikipedia article.

> - 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,

  encyclopedia ^^publishers^^ 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

Point out that waiting for addenda or a new ^^edition^^ 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