Wikipedia != Authoritative?

Frozen North writes "Recently, this article in the Syracuse Post-Standard caused a stir by dismissing Wikipedia as an authoritative source, and even suggesting that it was a little deceptive by looking too much like a "real" encyclopedia. Techdirt suggested an experiment: insert bogus information into Wikipedia, and see how long it takes for the mistake to be removed. Well, I did that experiment, and the results weren't good: five errors inserted over five days, all of which lasted until I removed them myself at the end of the experiment."

Comments

So what?

[Ianoo]

Does Wikipedia claim to be "authoritative" anywhere? The Internet has led to a variety of totally new media over the last couple of decades. Perhaps we should treat an "open content encyclopedia" as something conceptually different from a "traditional encyclopedia", in the same way a blog is different from a paper diary or an e-mail is different from a "snail mail".

Each of these evolved from older print-based media, but each of them have a slightly different "dynamic".

It's blindingly obvious to anyone who has clicked the numerous "Edit" links on a Wikipedia page that Wikipedia is fundamentally different to a print-based Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta. What this doesn't mean is that it's useless or pointless or should be discounted as a source. It should just be treated in an appropriate way given what it is.

putting false info on WP is antisocial

[cabalamat2]

Putting deliberately incorrect information on Wipipedia is an antisocial, immoral activity.

It is also arguably illegal in that it represents an unauthorised use of a computer system.

Still better than the NY TImes

[HangingChad]

I'm such a liar, liar, liar my pants are on fi-re and I'm writtin' for the Neeeeww Yoooork Tiiiiiiimes! Yeah!

How is parent a Troll?

[FooAtWFU]

Why is this moderated as a Troll? Is it because somehow adding incorrect information is not antisocial and immoral? Is it not "arguably" illegal? It's certainly a Downright Unfriendly Thing To Do, and the illegality of the matter is certainly at least arguably illegal (especially by /. standards). Our top repeat-vandals who go out of their way to abuse the wiki also behave in particularly antisocial matters.

No one is going to sue the author over this matter, and perhaps it's OK to introduce these errors as a kind of "test", but aside from that proviso I find it hard to believe that anyone can disagree with the statements in the parent post.

Re:surprising?

[Eunuchswear]

The Britannica's essays are signed and historically have included authors like Einstein and Freud.

And Freud was an expert in what? Bullshit? But even Jung could come up with less believable crap that him.

Re:Your sig

[penguinoid]

It's in the basic definition: atheism. It's not a belief in 0 gods, it is a lack of belief in gods.

So, what is the definition of agnosticism? I was pretty sure that agnostics have not formed an opinion as to what gods there are, whereas atheists quite clearly believe that there are no gods. (Or if you prefer, atheists have a lack of belief in gods but not a lack of belief in the absence of gods).

You can't accept that people don't have this belief

What I can't accept is scientist-wanabes that decide how the world is before going out to look.

You don't need a belief system to not believe in something.

Oh yea, then if I don't believe a word you said, I don't need to justify myself? Because disbelieving something is in fact a belief that requires justification. You don't seem to make a distinction between not believing and disbelieving. Look at it this way, you can convert disbelief in $BELIEF into belief in (NOT $BELIEF), whereas undecidedness is not a belief.

Now that I am done ranting, it seems to me that we are saying the same thing, except that I call undecidedness about gods agnosticism while you call it atheism.