[Wikipedia-l] Re: A challenge to the integrity of wikipedia

Thu Jan 13 14:37:09 UTC 2005

On Jan 13, 2005, at 1:11 AM, Tim Starling wrote:

> Stirling Newberry wrote:
>> http://www.bopnews.com/archives/002710.html#2710
>
> Just a couple of facts that weren't obvious to me at first glance but 
> which I think are important:
>
> 1) The linked article was written by Stirling Newberry
> 2) Stirling Newberry is involved in a heated dispute over the 
> [[Intelligent Design]] article.
>
> The article makes more sense when you read it in that context.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>

Other way around. I am on the ID article because it is a test of the 
current system. It's easy to keep out Holocaust denial, because the POV 
that it is cover for is universally rejected. Much harder is removing 
intellectual fraud that is cover for some fraction of a popular point 
of view. If wikipedia is merely mobocracy, then it does not converge on 
credibility.

There are similar articles on other aspects of creationism, many of 
which, ahem, would get you laughed out of first year biology or 
geology. Those arguing for expert gatekeeping have these articles as 
proof that the system doesn't work, or, at the very least, is unstable 
- prone to being upset at any moment, and untrustworthy because one 
never knows if one is going to get garbage disinformation.

The reality of this is that there are risk adverse users of 
information, and there are also purveyors of disinformation. The risk 
adverse information users lie in fear of exactly what is going on on 
wikipedia's articles on Creationism: organized intellectual fraud being 
let through the gates.

This is a security flaw in wikipedia's process, the argument of open 
source projects is that flaws are easily discovered, reported, and 
dealt with. The argument of proprietary projects is that such flaws are 
best dealt with by small selected groups of people out of reach of 
others.