On Feb 18, 2008 10:44 AM, Craig White <
craigwhite@azapple.com> 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
(text/plain)