Comments on: Wikipedia, and why it just isn’t that Important http://joeldowns.com/2006/08/08/wikipedia-and-why-it-just-isnt-that-important/ Media, Marketing, Technology, and a tune-up Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:37:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Rusty Razor Blade » Blog Archive » My beef with the Wikipedia http://joeldowns.com/2006/08/08/wikipedia-and-why-it-just-isnt-that-important/#comment-14 Rusty Razor Blade » Blog Archive » My beef with the Wikipedia Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:22:25 +0000 http://joeldowns.com/?p=4#comment-14 [...] I could make many more points, but they are made on Joel Down’s Blog. [...] [...] I could make many more points, but they are made on Joel Down’s Blog. [...]

]]> By: peter b http://joeldowns.com/2006/08/08/wikipedia-and-why-it-just-isnt-that-important/#comment-13 peter b Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:31:56 +0000 http://joeldowns.com/?p=4#comment-13 It does always comes down to trust -- and I agree, the people that work "for free", of course they have an agenda too. Though, I find they tend to wear it on their sleeve (myself included), so it's much easier to recognize. They may not cover news they want to hide, but, almost for sure, there will be someone there to fill that void. Even so, if we're going to make claims we should be able to verify them with independent <em>sources</em> (that's a plural!). It does always comes down to trust — and I agree, the people that work “for free”, of course they have an agenda too. Though, I find they tend to wear it on their sleeve (myself included), so it’s much easier to recognize. They may not cover news they want to hide, but, almost for sure, there will be someone there to fill that void.

Even so, if we’re going to make claims we should be able to verify them with independent sources (that’s a plural!).

]]> By: joel http://joeldowns.com/2006/08/08/wikipedia-and-why-it-just-isnt-that-important/#comment-11 joel Fri, 11 Aug 2006 23:48:22 +0000 http://joeldowns.com/?p=4#comment-11 Peter, it's true that having a not-for-profit media source alleviates the issue of money-induced bias, however, when anyone's allowed to edit, it becomes open to ALL biases. Sometimes people who are unpaid are the most vocal about their biases (we've seen this on Answerbag). People who are paid have an incentive to try to stay as unbiased as their bosses ask them to be. In that case it comes down to how much we trust the company that's paying the editors. Peter, it’s true that having a not-for-profit media source alleviates the issue of money-induced bias, however, when anyone’s allowed to edit, it becomes open to ALL biases. Sometimes people who are unpaid are the most vocal about their biases (we’ve seen this on Answerbag). People who are paid have an incentive to try to stay as unbiased as their bosses ask them to be. In that case it comes down to how much we trust the company that’s paying the editors.

]]> By: peter b http://joeldowns.com/2006/08/08/wikipedia-and-why-it-just-isnt-that-important/#comment-10 peter b Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:07:42 +0000 http://joeldowns.com/?p=4#comment-10 PS... this just in: C|Net on wikipedia... http://news.com.com/2010-1038_3-6104446.html?part=rss&tag=6104446&subj=news ... Bad things can happen when "people without brains use information written by people without consciences" ... PS… this just in: C|Net on wikipedia…

http://news.com.com/2010-1038_3-6104446.html?part=rss&tag=6104446&subj=news

… Bad things can happen when “people without brains use information written by people without consciences” …

]]> By: peter b http://joeldowns.com/2006/08/08/wikipedia-and-why-it-just-isnt-that-important/#comment-9 peter b Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:15:43 +0000 http://joeldowns.com/?p=4#comment-9 Wikipedia is not bad -- it just can't be trusted for critical information -- but what can be? If you need critical information, you check many sources to make sure your facts are straight. I don't think I've ever encountered a problem on Wikipedia -- jeesh -- Bob Blaylock and I both used it to present opposing opinions on astrology -- so -- I'd say, that makes Wikipedia a pretty neutral source. Joel -- I loved that ending... very clever! However -- there's another downside -- traditional media outlets pay their workers, so they need to raise money, so they're biased by revenue considerations. Citizen journalism and wikiality are important trends because they point to a world where revenue considerations aren't part of the formula for presenting information . Wikipedia is not bad — it just can’t be trusted for critical information — but what can be? If you need critical information, you check many sources to make sure your facts are straight. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a problem on Wikipedia — jeesh — Bob Blaylock and I both used it to present opposing opinions on astrology — so — I’d say, that makes Wikipedia a pretty neutral source.

Joel — I loved that ending… very clever! However — there’s another downside — traditional media outlets pay their workers, so they need to raise money, so they’re biased by revenue considerations. Citizen journalism and wikiality are important trends because they point to a world where revenue considerations aren’t part of the formula for presenting information .

]]> By: davoomac http://joeldowns.com/2006/08/08/wikipedia-and-why-it-just-isnt-that-important/#comment-7 davoomac Fri, 11 Aug 2006 07:36:36 +0000 http://joeldowns.com/?p=4#comment-7 The funny thing is so many users on Answerbag refer to wikipedia on a constant basis to answer questions. The funny thing is so many users on Answerbag refer to wikipedia on a constant basis to answer questions.

]]> By: joel http://joeldowns.com/2006/08/08/wikipedia-and-why-it-just-isnt-that-important/#comment-6 joel Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:10:45 +0000 http://joeldowns.com/?p=4#comment-6 Yes, it's brilliant! <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A7W42aE9kao"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A7W42aE9kao" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> Yes, it’s brilliant!

]]> By: jhaddad http://joeldowns.com/2006/08/08/wikipedia-and-why-it-just-isnt-that-important/#comment-5 jhaddad Wed, 09 Aug 2006 23:09:54 +0000 http://joeldowns.com/?p=4#comment-5 Agreed. Did you watch the Steve Colbert when he discussed the wikipedia's lack of accuracy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7W42aE9kao Agreed. Did you watch the Steve Colbert when he discussed the wikipedia’s lack of accuracy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7W42aE9kao

]]>