Everyone's favorite FUD-master is at it again

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Why checkable references and...

Re: [WikiEN-l] Half a million...

Mark Pellegrini

20 Mar 2005 20 Mar '05

12:05 p.m.

Everyone's favorite FUD-master is at it again --- http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0503200191mar20,1,26199.story?… / /*...* / A similar hyperbole surrounds such projects as the Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia open to all. The Wikipedia's apologists emphasize the great number of volunteers who have taken part in the project and the number of entries they have contributed. They emphasize also the communal nature of the undertaking, in which anyone with a better understanding of a subject, or a bigger ax to grind, can edit what someone else has created. Their prime article of faith is that this openness will inevitably lead to a high level of accuracy and quality. ... ---------- Robert McHenry is former editor of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and is the author of "How to Know." /This is the same guy who called us the Faith-based encyclopedia and compared us to a public toilet- http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html --Mark

Show replies by date

csherlock＠ljh.com.au

21 Mar 21 Mar

5:04 a.m.

Mark Pellegrini wrote:

...

"In each of these examples, a small and self-selected group convinces itself not so much that it represents the greater world beyond the computer screen but that it is in some ineffable way superior to it, that it has transcended the need for the hard lessons the rest of us have learned about how things actually work." Can anyone say irony? The Encyclopedia Britannica uses an even smaller number of people to write their articles. Through the years, the EB has proven wrong in many of their editions. That they are more correct in their latest works shows that they have the same issues as Wikipedia. TBSDY

csherlock＠ljh.com.au

11:52 p.m.

I received this in my email (I'm disguising parts of my mail header). Received: from xxx [999.999.999.999] by mail.whatever.com.au (SMTPD32-7.13) id ABFFAF640142; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:18:07 +1100 Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com(65.39.178.135) by medusa.ljh.com.au via smtp id 353d_5d4abf3c_9a46_11d9_9d27_00304811e5bb; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:18:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (localhost.hushmail.com [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A4816A332F for <csherlock(a)blah.com.au>au>; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:20:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailserver1.hushmail.com (mailserver1host.hushmail.com [65.39.178.45]) by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for <csherlock(a)blah.com.au>au>; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:20:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nobody@localhost) by mailserver1.hushmail.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id j2LKKLof055924 for csherlock(a)ljh.com.au; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:20:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200503212020.j2LKKLof055924(a)mailserver1.hushmail.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:20:18 -0800 To: csherlock(a)blah.com.au Cc: Subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content From: <debussy(a)cyber-rights.net> X-RCPT-TO: <csherlock(a)blah.com.au> Status: U X-UIDL: 409887403 "Can anyone say irony? The Encyclopedia Britannica uses an even smaller number of people to write their articles. Through the years, the EB has proven wrong in many of their editions. That they are more correct in their latest works shows that they have the same issues as Wikipedia. TBSDY " You utter moron. The difference is they're a proper encyclopedia and the wikipedia is just a web noticeboard. (The worst of all the web's trash boards for geeks and flamers and dirty arrogant morons.) csherlock(a)ljh.com.au wrote:

...

Mark Pellegrini wrote:

csherlock＠ljh.com.au

22 Mar 22 Mar

1:49 a.m.

Well look at that! Gmane disguises email addresses automatically for you. I didn't know it would do that... TBSDY csherlock(a)ljh.com.au wrote:

...

Fastfission

3:57 a.m.

"Damned kids! A horseless carriage is pure nonsense! Dangerous, even! Why, nobody will ever want to go more than 5 miles an hour! What foolishness! Horse-and-buggy is here to STAY!" Sure, Wikipedia has some issues that will never be easily resolved. But so does every encyclopedia production system -- need I allude to the troubles of Diderot and d'Alembert? What's wonderful is the obvious threat he sees to his way of life, the encyclopedia he cherishes. I mean, if he's right about its inaccuracy, inconsequentialness, and inherently ridiculous nature, then what's he got to fear? How's it any worse than any other of the million webpages out there full of nonsense? Surely if it was so obvious how much better EB was, he'd have nothing to fear! But all this bravado is nothing more than howl of a shaken man. Wikipedia alone isn't behind the problems (current or looming) faced by print encyclopedia manufacturers. The internet as a whole is behind that. Wikipedia's just one aspect of a greater shift in the technologies of communication and representation which makes massive tomes less likely and makes expensive subscriptions seem unnecessary. I doubt print encyclopedias will go the way of the dinosaurs, but I can understand their dis-ease. The die has been cast -- their authority has been questioned and directly challenged by a legion of people willing to work for nothing at all. It's an understandable concern, but it's far too late at this point. FF On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:05:21 -0500, Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini(a)comcast.net> wrote:

...

Ray Saintonge

6:21 a.m.

Fastfission wrote:

...

Wikipedia alone isn't behind the problems (current or looming) faced by print encyclopedia manufacturers. The internet as a whole is behind that. Wikipedia's just one aspect of a greater shift in the technologies of communication and representation which makes massive tomes less likely and makes expensive subscriptions seem unnecessary. I doubt print encyclopedias will go the way of the dinosaurs, but I can understand their dis-ease. The die has been cast -- their authority has been questioned and directly challenged by a legion of people willing to work for nothing at all. It's an understandable concern, but it's far too late at this point.

Agreed, what we are witnessing (or better still experiencing) is a major paradigm shift in the full sense that Kuhn had forseen. It is as great as anything seen since Gutenberg. Gutenberg laid the way for unilateral mass communication. The present shift lies in what has made two way mass communication technologically possible. That can be pretty brutal on those who had invested in the permanence of unidirectional communications. Ec

Cormac Lawler

6:43 p.m.

...

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:05:21 -0500, Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Everyone's favorite FUD-master is at it again --- > http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0503200191mar20,1,26199.story?… > / > /*...* > / A similar hyperbole surrounds such projects as the Wikipedia, a free > online encyclopedia open to all. The Wikipedia's apologists emphasize > the great number of volunteers who have taken part in the project and > the number of entries they have contributed. They emphasize also the > communal nature of the undertaking, in which anyone with a better > understanding of a subject, or a bigger ax to grind, can edit what > someone else has created. Their prime article of faith is that this > openness will inevitably lead to a high level of accuracy and quality. > ... > ---------- > Robert McHenry is former editor of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and is > the author of "How to Know." > > /This is the same guy who called us the Faith-based encyclopedia and > compared us to a public toilet- > http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html > > --Mark >

That link that Mark posted didn't work for me but this one does: http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0503200191mar20,1,26199.story?… It seemed to me from reading the article that McHenry's answers to his own concerns were inherent in Wikipedia's structure: "There is no guarantee that truth will win out; there is only our hard-won and too-seldom-employed knowledge of what gives us the best chance: the free exchange and clash of ideas." (Is Wikipedia not an obvious example of this?) In his final recommendations, he advocates "clear thinking", a "genial skepticism" to both one's own and others' opinions and "toleration" (tolerance, surely?). Theoretically, this is covered in NPOV, [[assume good faith]], and [[no personal attacks]] but as we all know these are violated daily. My question is: how do you (I,we) work this in practice from a personal perspective rather than looking at others? Cormac [[User:Cormaggio]] (en,m)

6994

days inactive

6996

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

6 comments

5 participants

tags (0)

participants (5)

Cormac Lawler
csherlock＠ljh.com.au
Fastfission
Mark Pellegrini
Ray Saintonge