Growing Wikipedia Revises Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html
Some are bothered by the Wikipedia on-line source of information on most anything -- particularly that anyone can contribute to editing particular entrees. Certainly errors can creep in, but from my own experience as a contributor way back when to the 3rd edition of the Columbia Encyclopedia as a grad student pulling in a few extra pennies without really working, I am all too aware of the misinformation collected and passed along by the established ones -- Britannic, etc.
I was asked on an emergency basis to re-do the Columbia's entrees in religion and philosophy. I was at the moment mid Ph.D. in philosophy which had followed studies in theology here and at Oxford -- both with leading figures in these two fields. So I was about as up to date as one could be with the latest studies in this and that. And I could check out things that I did not know with experts.
I was startled to discover that the predecessor 2rd edition of the Columbia Encyclopedia was filled with misinformation. Some of this amusingly had been cribbed from the big boys, often word for word! In one instance some predecessor in a hurry had simply taken the last and least important paragraph as his contribution from the Britannia. I found innumerable errors that I corrected earnestly -- many of which had been passed along obviously through all the major encyclopedias that had been cribbing (plagiarizing) from each other. Much to my own embarrassment thereafter I discovered that I, myself, had misremembered something from a lecture I had had and had incorporated a real howler as fact.
I have not had the courage to check subsequent editions or other sources to discover whether my revision of history has endured and spread. But I am convinced that newly minted scholars -- mainly in their 20s so this Times article indicates -- are probably doing the best possible job of making info available on line in response to a simple Google query. I am inclined to trust Wiki when it states something authoritatively -- and when it indicates that the current entry needs repairs!
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net
Some are bothered by the Wikipedia on-line source of information on most anything -- particularly that anyone can contribute to editing particular entrees. Certainly errors can creep in, but from my own experience as a contributor way back when to the 3rd edition of the Columbia Encyclopedia as a grad student pulling in a few extra pennies without really working, I am all too aware of the misinformation collected and passed along by the established ones -- Britannic, etc.
I was asked on an emergency basis to re-do the Columbia's entrees in religion and philosophy. I was at the moment mid Ph.D. in philosophy which had followed studies in theology here and at Oxford -- both with leading figures in these two fields. So I was about as up to date as one could be with the latest studies in this and that. And I could check out things that I did not know with experts.
I was startled to discover that the predecessor 2rd edition of the Columbia Encyclopedia was filled with misinformation. Some of this amusingly had been cribbed from the big boys, often word for word! In one instance some predecessor in a hurry had simply taken the last and least important paragraph as his contribution from the Britannia. I found innumerable errors that I corrected earnestly -- many of which had been passed along obviously through all the major encyclopedias that had been cribbing (plagiarizing) from each other. Much to my own embarrassment thereafter I discovered that I, myself, had misremembered something from a lecture I had had and had incorporated a real howler as fact.
I have not had the courage to check subsequent editions or other sources to discover whether my revision of history has endured and spread. But I am convinced that newly minted scholars -- mainly in their 20s so this Times article indicates -- are probably doing the best possible job of making info available on line in response to a simple Google query. I am inclined to trust Wiki when it states something authoritatively -- and when it indicates that the current entry needs repairs!
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net
posted by Ed Kent at 7:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home