FUD-Based Encyclopedias

blacklily8 writes "Someone has finally gotten around to offering an intelligent point-by-point rejoinder to an ex-Brittanica editor's lambasting of Wikipedia--which was covered in this earlier Slashdot post. Aaron Krowne, a mathematician and head of Emory University's library research department, argues here that established encyclopedias are using FUD to discredit what is actually a more reliable way to build an encyclopedia: 'McHenry's definition of quality seems to consist solely of presentational matters such as spelling, grammar, and text flow. These are of course important considerations, but I propose that there are other important facets of quality - for example, coverage.'"

Comments

Re:information is not a democracy

[DerekLyons]

Wp is confirmably biased - just try "correcting" factual inaccuracies in a political reference. I have tried. With backup statements, direct quotes, etc. They definitely have an agenda.

It's biased in more than politics as well.

Try correcting an article where the 'facts' are incorrect a well known website and are correct only on one obscure one... Your edits will be reverted in a heartbeat.

Try correcting articles on topics where you are knowledgeable, and where 'common knowledge' is mostly wrong... Your edits will be reverted in a heartbeat.