Comments on: Wikipedia: Information Anarchy http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/wikipedia_information_anarchy/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:12:14 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Tim Worstall http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/wikipedia_information_anarchy/comment-page-1/#comment-44913 Tim Worstall Thu, 05 May 2005 09:57:19 +0000 /?p=10398#comment-44913 You bought Brittanica in 1990? LAst version of that I trusted was the 1911 revision. You bought Brittanica in 1990? LAst version of that I trusted was the 1911 revision.

]]> By: James Joyner http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/wikipedia_information_anarchy/comment-page-1/#comment-44885 James Joyner Thu, 05 May 2005 00:06:42 +0000 /?p=10398#comment-44885 John: I figure that for "new" entries, it's a rough draft. For established ones, though, it's pretty solid. As with blogs, there are a lot of people out there with good info willing to put in the work to share it. Probably not that many people without some genuine expertise would bother trying to edit an encyclopedia. Why would they? John: I figure that for "new" entries, it's a rough draft. For established ones, though, it's pretty solid. As with blogs, there are a lot of people out there with good info willing to put in the work to share it. Probably not that many people without some genuine expertise would bother trying to edit an encyclopedia. Why would they?

]]> By: John Burgess http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/wikipedia_information_anarchy/comment-page-1/#comment-44883 John Burgess Wed, 04 May 2005 23:47:06 +0000 /?p=10398#comment-44883 I think it's pretty much a waste of time. Sure, it's "self-correcting", but how do you know you've got the "correct" version in front of you at any given time? The last guy with his version of "correct" has the last say, until the next guy injects his own. Maybe for general information, along the lines of a thesaurus, it works. But with no way to achieve a definition about what's "right or wrong" factually, it faces severe challenges to information integrity. With half of university graduates now informed that "there's no right or wrong version" of history of fact--only privileged ones--I'm not at all convinced that reality should be determined by concensus. I think it's pretty much a waste of time. Sure, it's "self-correcting", but how do you know you've got the "correct" version in front of you at any given time? The last guy with his version of "correct" has the last say, until the next guy injects his own.

Maybe for general information, along the lines of a thesaurus, it works. But with no way to achieve a definition about what's "right or wrong" factually, it faces severe challenges to information integrity.

With half of university graduates now informed that "there's no right or wrong version" of history of fact--only privileged ones--I'm not at all convinced that reality should be determined by concensus.

]]> By: bryan http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/wikipedia_information_anarchy/comment-page-1/#comment-44879 bryan Wed, 04 May 2005 23:16:26 +0000 /?p=10398#comment-44879 It doesn't really seem like it's information "anarchy," as there's still an organizing structure (the software) and a community understanding of how things operate. It doesn't really seem like it's information "anarchy," as there's still an organizing structure (the software) and a community understanding of how things operate.

]]> By: Anderson http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/wikipedia_information_anarchy/comment-page-1/#comment-44877 Anderson Wed, 04 May 2005 22:28:50 +0000 /?p=10398#comment-44877 The "Palpatine" photo was pretty great, btw. The "Palpatine" photo was pretty great, btw.

]]>