Errors and omissions corrected below. Too many children, nieces and a nephew running around here. And I'm tired.
Alan Alan Dayley wrote: > Craig White wrote: >> On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 18:40 -0700, Alan Dayley wrote: >>> Thank you all. I should have thought of wikipedia! >> ---- >> Just wondering...I occasionally run into people that dismiss wikipedia >> out of hand citing a lack of accuracy. Needless to say, I get a little >> excited because even when I suggest that they are capable of fixing >> inaccuracies or adding missing information, they are defeatists who >> simply don't get it. >> >> I would bet others run into this kind of person...who doesn't believe >> that it's accurate unless it's printed in Groliers or Britannica or some >> pay service. How do you deal with people like this? > > I try to express these ideas: > > - They are correct, it is likely that some of the information in > Wikipedia articles is wrong. > > - Since Wikipedia requires references and places that need them get > flagged, references in Wikipedia can be used as a starting point for > research. > > - Ask if they believe everything they read on websites but only doubt > Wikipedia. > > - The same person can enter incorrect information in a Wikipedia > article, that everyone can edit, and publish the same incorrect > information on a website only they can edit. Ask why the later is more > credible than the former. - The same person can publish the same incorrect information in an encyclopedia or journal, even after peer review. Ask why they expect it to be completely correct. - Ask how many people review an traditionally published article compared to how many review a Wikipedia article. > - Having said that, ask if they have ever watched or read a news article > that they knew to be incorrect. Ask if they think it odd that printed > encyclopedia sets issue correction addenda from time to time. Errors, encyclopedia ^^publishers^^ issue correction addenda from time to time. Errors, or at least, mistakes are in all sources of information. > > - Point out that waiting for addenda or a new addition is far less Point out that waiting for addenda or a new ^^edition^^ is far less > useful than an encyclopedia that can be changed nearly immediately. > > - There is great value in "experts," even true experts, writing peer > reviewed articles. There are many avenues such as journals and other > publications for their contributions. There is also great value in > allowing people with direct knowledge, though perhaps without official > credentials, to publish their knowledge to the world. The > democratization of knowledge sharing is very important in ways we do not > know just as Gutenberg probably only had a imagining of the power of > what he created. Wikipedia, or at least such a concept, is an important > part of that. > > - Change and incorrect information are everywhere, all the time. > Wikipedia simply exposes that truth to everyone instead of masking it, > even if the mask is not purposeful. > > That's all I can think of right now. If all of that is to "high minded" > for you or them, just tell them it's fun to participate! > > Alan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
