Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Don't you worry about Wikipedia we'll change it when we get home. We'll change a lot of things.
"Even 2+2 is 4 only if everyone agrees". Sum like that.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
That slashdot isn't considered some other publication.
Simson Garfinkel? You mean that singing duo?
Wikipedia provides the new standard of "truth"?
We all know that nothing is "true" until it has been posted on Slashdot. Jimbo Wales is fit to polish Commander Taco's sneakers.
Free Martian Whores!
So, if somebody creates a Wikipedia article called "Everything on Wikipedia is a Lie ", will it start arguing with itself, then explode?
We all know that the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom.
So, unless Wikipedia adds a huge DON'T PANIC header to their website, I won't be using it.
Wikipedia: Where persistent opinions are correct opinions.
There, fixed that for you.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
all media is suspect, anywhere. you go through life with a good bullshit meter, or you don't go through life at all.
Or you go through life anyway, and vote republican.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Expect that it's wrong
That's what I usually do while reading Slashdot.
{{Citation Needed}}
Ubiquitously - A Ubiquity Developer Community
Please strike a blow AGAINST deletionism.
I prefer to think of it as Intelligent Editing.
Wikipedia: Where persistent opinions are correct opinions.
There, fixed that for you
Don't bother, the OP will just revert it...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Perhaps what you really want to know is how Wiktionary defines truth.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
The Wikipedia is about the search for verifiable fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.
No...what blew my mind was seeing that "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims", disclaimer at the top of the article page. In the context of this discussion that's pretty hilarious...
Argumentum ad populum ... yes that's a wikipedia link; did I just blow your mind a little?
I'm not sure. Can I ask around?