[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

Tue Feb 28 09:00:48 UTC 2006

Fred Bauder wrote:

>I think we need to adopt standards of what is an acceptable source  
>which is in accord with the nature of the subject. In this case, it  
>is not going to be a book published by the Oxford University Press,  
>blogs may have to serve, as well as comixs websites. The alternative  
>is to drastically trim our popular culture coverage, which is one of  
>the bright spots of Wikipedia, if sometimes considered eccentric and  
>unscholarly.
>
Agreed, but I think some of our colleauges would be much happier with a 
one model suits all solution.  Obviously we need a stricter standard 
when it come to information about living people.  Pop culture in some 
respects really doesn't matter; at the same time I'm convinced that we 
have Wikipedians who are undocumented bona fide experts on these topic.

One cannot predict what will be authoritative, though I think that our 
credibility is much improved over what it was a year ago.  Pop culture 
may be undignified for some, but we must never forget the attraction 
that many people have for the trivial.  Many of these people will also 
fall for the most ridiculous urban myths, but it would be nice if "I 
read it in Wikipedia" could a mark of authority when people repeat thes 
useless fact to their friends.

I often drift in and out of attention when the radio is playing in the 
background.  Mention of Wikipedia grabs my attention.  It was 
interesting to hear a commentater remark that in the light of some 
recent scandals over science that had been published in peer reviewed 
journals something like Wikipedia might be a better avenue for peer 
review than the existing system.  Many of these journals operate on  a 
tight budget.  They may require their authors to maintain raw 
experimental data for authentication, but in reality most of these 
journals do not have the resources needed to properly audit submissions. 
Repeating experiments may be costly, and if the author and his 
institution have the research tied up in patents repeating them would 
not be cost effective either when the auditor can have no return on his 
investment.

Ec