Quote:
Originally Posted by BWinmill
I suspect that too much is being read into the non-credibility of the Wikipedia and the credibility of Britannica.
|
This has nothing to do with the credibility of either. This has to do with the
stated purpose of both.
You would not take your child to a veterinarian when he's sick, and you would not take your dog to a pediatrician when it's stick.
Britannica and Wikipedia
say their purposes are different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWinmill
If you stick to topics that both cover, the reliability should be quite similar.
|
No. They shouldn't. They very often are, but there's no reason to expect that. Britannica (tries to) report how things are. That's what they say. Wikipedia does not. They (try to) report
how people believe things are.
That's their published policy. And when confronted with compelling evidence that the popular belief is simply wrong,
they have held to that policy, and said that's their intent. Their words, not mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWinmill
Indeed, studies have indicated such. Even if you go into topics that are covered only by Wikipedia, comply to Wikipedia guidelines, and are non-controversial you should be okay.
|
The other category is areas where knowledge has very recently changed, as with the research on the Haymarket Riot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWinmill
Keep in mind that the Wikipedia does provide many forms of tools to assess problematic articles.
|
Indeed. And those tools have driven a
lot of potential contributors away. Take a look at
this for a first hand (and remarkably non-hostile) account of how badly it can go wrong.
"I am not exaggerating when I say it is the closest thing to Kafka’s The Trial I have ever witnessed"
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWinmill
Also keep in mind that I'm not claiming that the Wikipedia is perfect, or even close to it. I am claiming that many of the claims about it's unreliability are overblown.
|
And I'm claiming that discussing unreliability is pointless without first understanding what they are
trying to do. And comparing their reliability to Britannica is utterly and completely pointless, because
they do not try to do the same thing. You might as well compare their reliability to a web site that sells t-shirt. They just aren't comparable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWinmill
Take an anonymous comment  from another thread:
Well, no. I do agree that the Wikipedia is an extremely poor source in this case because it is a controversial topic and because there is likely a conflict of interest. |
The failings of Wikipedia are institutional, rooted in the deliberate lack of central authority. And it's been slowly coming to a head in recent years, and the structural (or lack thereof) decisions made in the beginning are making it worse, not better - driving out more impartial people, and retaining only the most boneheaded and stubborn, who are far more likely to be biased.
When the way to win edit wars is to be a bigger bully than the other guy, you don't get impartiality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWinmill
(I suspect that most of the people involved with the Wikipedia are opposed to DRM simply because the mission of the Wikipedia contradicts reflects open access.) Yet that doesn't mean that the article is wrong. Highly selective in what the evidence that it chooses to present, sure. Highly biased in its interpretation of that evidence, sure. You definitely need to be careful about stuff like that. Yet that doesn't mean that whatever it says on the topic is wrong.
|
On a controversial topic, what stays in the article is what the most pig headed, stubborn, biggest bully editor believes. That doesn't inherently make it wrong, but you wouldn't want to bet any other way. Wikipedia has some very deep problems, rooted in the original concept.