Posted on 03/23/2007 2:21:06 PM PDT by lqclamar
Essjay (or Ryan Jordan in real life), got away with his pretence because Wikipedians jealously preserve their anonymity. With most entries, anyone can edit without even logging in; or they can create an entirely fictitious online identity before doing so. The effect is rather like an online role-playing game. Indeed, it is easy to imagine some sad fellow spending the morning pretending to be a polyglot professor on Wikipedia, and then becoming a buxom red-head on “Second Life”, a virtual online world, in the afternoon.
That anonymity creates a phoney equality, which puts cranks and experts on the same footing. The same egalitarian approach starts off by regarding all sources as equal, regardless of merit. If a peer-reviewed journal says one thing and a non-specialist newspaper report another, the Wikipedia entry is likely solemnly to cite them both, saying that the truth is disputed. If the cranky believe the latter and the experts the former, the result will be wearisome online editing wars before something approaching the academic mainstream consensus gains the weight it should.
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...
This sounds very similar to the typical academic experience in the US: the truth is whatever I want it to be.
If you read the entire article, it's anything but a slam. In fact there's more praise than criticism.
I'm not sure what article you're reading, but the one I posted is subtitled "Wikipedia's variety of contributors is not only a strength." There are two paragraphs midway through the article where it briefly discusses Wikipedia's "strengths" - specifically the fact that vandalism of articles is often caught fairly quickly. And if you think about it, is that really a bragging point in the first place? That Wikipedia's "good" because the profanity-laced garbage that gets stuck into the middle of hundreds of thousands of articles on a daily basis gets cleaned up fairly quickly? And of course even then some of it slips through and goes unnoticed for weeks on end before being fixed.
As a point of praise for Wikipedia, the fact that they clean up vandalism to their own website is a pretty weak one. It's like heaping praises and accolades on Wal-Mart simply because they do a moderately successful job of cleaning their restrooms every hour.
After that point the Economist article quickly returns to criticism of "Wikipedia’s inherent bias towards trivial recent events" and the tendency for any controversial subject matter to be a convoluted mess. It's conclusion sums it up nicely - wikipedia can be a useful starting point, but it's stupid to use it as a reliable source.
The only thing in there speaking to the strenghts of the "Wiki process" is an interlude in the middle of the article about how quickly they (sometimes) clean up vandalism to articles. That's a pretty weak example to build a compliment around. Do you write reviews singing praises of your local grocery store for doing a good job of cleaning up spills on the aisles?
Wikipedia isn't too bad for getting some general information and then running down your own sources. I wouldn't cite it for anything controversial though.
How is this different from the MSM, including The Economist? I don't trust Wikipedia on politicized subjects, but most of their entries are more accurate than anything you can find in the New York Times on most days.
Pot calling the kettle black. Two left leaning institutions with little regard for objective facts.
The Economist is actually well known for its conservative fiscal views, and is generally regarded as one of the highest quality news sources out there. It is a mistake to lump them into the same category as the New York Times.
Also, if you think Wikipedia is any better than the liberal MSM, why do so many MSM hack journalists and AP types use Wikipedia for background information on their articles? The answer is that they are one in the same politically - a bunch of left wing perverts and kooks. The Economist and a few other nominally MSM publications (Wall Street Journal) are not in that category though.
The Economist is considered a fiscal conservative publication. It is socially liberal on some things, but traditionally has been pro-free market on anything involving economic policy. They should not be lumped with the NYT, Wikipedia, or any other all-leftist publication.
For all its warts and shortcomings, it represents what is great about the web community.
Not unlike FR.
Well that's the point "wiki"=quick. It's a source for stuff you won't find elsewhere.
And I wish FReepers would use it before posting "well I never heard of that"
Personally, I really love Wikipedia, but I can with some difficulty understand why people dislike it. Still, what's wrong with the economist? It's a very good intelligent counterpoint to the liberal magazines. In fact, it (and foreign Affairs) are the only written news i ever read on a regular basis. It's got wonderful articles and a much higher standard of writing than the New York Times.
The Economist is at best libertarian, but mostly liberal in it's bias. It's favored by the intellectual liberals who think that they know more about the marketplace than those actually in it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.