On Feb 18, 2008 12:15 PM, Dazed_75 <
lthielster@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2008 11:52 AM, Joshua Zeidner <jjzeidner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> Very true Craig, but I think Josh makes some points too. Basically
> the credibility issue is a wider one and is always subjective to some
> degree. The receiver of information from any source will always make
> a judgment whether or not to trust the information. That judgment
> will be based on the subject, the source, the content, the receivers
> knowledge and history among other things. Yes, print media has some
> stricter enforcement but that has not prevented factual errors or self
> serving opinions being printed and therefore preserved for posterity.
> Even corrections that happen are not joined to the printed copy except
> in reprints.
>
> So basically, you are both right. No one should trust any media
> without question. Unfortunately, too many people seem to do so. And
> that is a sad truth.
>
> That said, I still use Wikipedia quite a lot and and make judgment
> calls on it as with every other source of information. Hopefully this
> discussion has served to remind someone they must do so as well.
Larry, the problem though with Wikipedia is that the actual basis of
credibility on which a given article rests is virtually intractable.
There are thousands of apparent contributors all adding, deleting,
editing portions of the article and there is absolutely no way in the
Wiki medium to determine which portions of the article are coming from
credible sources. The Wiki idea works when you have a high level of
trust in all potential participants, when you've got various
contributors with a variety of motives the medium becomes corrupted
VERY quickly. At this point anyone who has used Wikipedia seriously
no longer considers it to be a stable system, despite what Jimbo tells
you. The Google Knol idea did somewhat address these shortcomings.
-jmz
http://joshuazeidner.blogspot.com/?ref=plug-main-list
---------------------------------------------------
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)