Wikipedia objections (Was: Re: zImage compressed with what?)

[Craig White]

On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 11:52 -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote:

>   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.
----
I simply don't connect libel laws and the burdens of proof requirements
when considering the differences between print & URL based sources as
any indicator or assurance of technical accuracy/credibility. I don't
see how the issues intersect at all but rather see them as artifacts of
the fact that law evolves slowly. I think this issue was visited
recently when Andrew Thomas/Dennis Wilenchik tried to institute charges
against the New Times publisher/editor for publishing Sheriff Joe's home
address online which apparently still is on the books as a crime but not
in print. 
----
>   Secondly, print is
> /durable/ and whatever you put into print, you cannot change later,
> which also adds a lot to its credibility.
----
and yet, it is trivial to make exactly the opposite argument...that as
facts become known/better known/made clear/etc. that information does
indeed morph over time and becomes infinitely less valuable over time if
it is fixed in print.
----
>   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.  :)
----
I have no knowledge of the amount of claims to inaccuracies of
wikipedia, nor to the extent or the grievousness of inaccuracies.

What I have acquired is an abiding appreciation for the collective
knowledge of all of the worlds populace and that something like
wikipedia clearly exploits that collective knowledge and dispenses it as
fairly as possible.

One of operating theories that I have heard throughout my years is that
history is written by the winners and it is clear that even things we
might agree on to be facts have a perspective or a bias which probably
suggests that they really aren't facts. I'm quite sure that much of this
was covered in 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' which I have
read several times and I simply can't retain it. I do know that there
are alternatives such as http://www.conservapedia.com so they can tell
their own version of the same people/events.

Craig