Wikipedia's New Definition of Truth

Hugh Pickens writes "Simson Garfinkel has an interesting essay on MIT Technology Review in which he examines the way that Wikipedia has redefined the commonly accepted use of the word 'truth.' While many academic experts have argued that Wikipedia's articles can't be trusted because they are written and edited by volunteers who have never been vetted, studies have found that the articles are remarkably accurate. 'But wikitruth isn't based on principles such as consistency or observability. It's not even based on common sense or firsthand experience,' says Garfinkel. What makes a fact or statement fit for inclusion is verifiability — that it appeared in some other publication, but there is a problem with appealing to the authority of other people's written words: many publications don't do any fact checking at all, and many of those that do simply call up the subject of the article and ask if the writer got the facts wrong or right. Wikipedia's policy of 'No Original Research' also leads to situations like Jaron Lanier's frustrated attempts to correct his own Wikipedia entry based on firsthand knowledge of his own career. So what is Wikipedia's truth? 'Since Wikipedia is the most widely read online reference on the planet, it's the standard of truth that most people are implicitly using when they type a search term into Google or Yahoo. On Wikipedia, truth is received truth: the consensus view of a subject.'"

Comments

Re:Food for Thought

[DM9290]

But, for the most part...the intelligence in the US, UK, France..and Russia all said he had some hidden over there. And it isn't like Saddam didn't try to perpetuate the myth that he did. Ironically...if he's allowed unfettered inspections, and went out of his way to show he had none, and truly did NOT pursue getting them, he'd still be alive, in charge....and torturing his people for fun along with his sons.

If Hussein could do the impossible then he would have waved his hand and the ocean would have swallowed the American invasion fleet.

WMD was merely a pretense for war. The war was already decided upon. Nothing Hussein did could have prevented it.

And no intelligence agency claimed they had reliable information that any weapons of mass destruction were located in Iraq.