Seriously, what do you think? You seem pretty committed to the free market. Isn't Wikipedia just like the free-market of ideas, a la JS Mill?
It seems to me that the whole idea of "the mob" throws a kink in free market ideology. How could we be free rational agents if, as many say of so-called "mob mentality," that we are often unreasonable and even delusional at key moments in our decision making.
**Sorry if my comments seem irrelevant. I would have read the article, but the site is down for some reason.
Originally posted by bjohnson407This is a tough one. I think Wiki is sometimes a great starting point for research, however, as the article states, it's sometimes biased and often quite wrong on hot button issues, for instance, "school vouchers". Your analogy of Wiki as "the free-market of ideas" is interesting on the surface, however, I would contend that it is more like Hobbes' "state of nature."
Seriously, what do you think? You seem pretty committed to the free market. Isn't Wikipedia just like the free-market of ideas, a la JS Mill?
It seems to me that the whole idea of "the mob" throws a kink in free market ideology. How could we be free rational agents if, as many say of so-called "mob mentality," that we are often unreasonable and even d ...[text shortened]... ments seem irrelevant. I would have read the article, but the site is down for some reason.
The article says it all. Wikipedia is a great source for high-traffic uncontested topics. It's not going to tell you who is right in the latest political debate.
Even on contested and low-volume topics, it's often a great place to go for a starting point, but you have to read it with a skeptical eye.
Originally posted by bjohnson407Wikipedia's not so much the free market of ideas because people go in and erase what others write. You have no "copyrighting". However, Wikipedia is handy.
Seriously, what do you think? You seem pretty committed to the free market. Isn't Wikipedia just like the free-market of ideas, a la JS Mill?
It seems to me that the whole idea of "the mob" throws a kink in free market ideology. How could we be free rational agents if, as many say of so-called "mob mentality," that we are often unreasonable and even d ...[text shortened]... ments seem irrelevant. I would have read the article, but the site is down for some reason.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBut everyone has the right to overwrite, so it is not a static case of one person only having one chance to detail the 'truth' and then have another corrupt it and that's the end of the story. Wiki has mods and if it appears that an issue is highly contestable and or contentious, then the wiki mods do make note of the fact and you the reader are advised accordingly.
Wikipedia's not so much the free market of ideas because people go in and erase what others write. You have no "copyrighting". However, Wikipedia is handy.
Even so most tertiary institutions would not accept Wiki as a source in any essay or report. Where it is usefull is that some of the better articles on Wiki are appended with a great bibliography, and the texts contained on this list are often an invaluable resource. You only need one or two of the sources quoted by a wiki article to meet academic standards to have their bibliographies as starting point to investigate and verify the authenticity of any statement.
In terms of the topics I would trust, I find wiki an invaluable first stop for most things mathematical, technical, scientific or engineering. Because these ideas can be reduced and simplified its usually easy enough to verify if they are accurate or not.
I'm at Uni and if we cite wikipedia once in an essay it's an instant fail. Nobody in the academic world uses it coz it's so inaccurate. I remember one of my teachers proving a point by managing to submit the fact that Mozart had a ginger cat called Cuddles. It stayed up there for almost a month before anyone questioned it. In short. It's VERY dangerous and shouldn't be trusted.
Any fears you have about the content of wikipedia (if you have any, i don't think you said you did...) have to be followed to their logical conclusion, namely that all written material should be viewed with the same skeptical eye. I don't really see that the advent of community created documentation really changes anything at all. It could just as easily be argued that wikipedia is in fact a massive step in the right direction when it comes to properly accredited information, it is in a constant state of change and takes into account (eventually) a far wider spectrum of opinion than a book written by a single author. While it is open to abuse, so is the mainstream media for exactly the same reasons. It is often said that history is written by the winners, i think most people can see the truth of that. It always comes down to the readers interpretation, that has been the case ever since pen was first put to paper and always will, wikipedia makes history and information democratic. While it brings some new problems to the issue, it solves an awful lot too!
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterwhen you read wiki ... and really get into something you need to start reading the "discussion" and "history" pages to find hidden secrets ... then you get a really good understanding of most issues and their counterarguments. reading the current page is often simply an up todate overview.
Should we trust the "wisdom of crowds" or fear the mob?
http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/16111162.html
Originally posted by MarinkatombAny fears you have about the content of wikipedia (if you have any, i don't think you said you did...) have to be followed to their logical conclusion, namely that all written material should be viewed with the same skeptical eye.
Any fears you have about the content of wikipedia (if you have any, i don't think you said you did...) have to be followed to their logical conclusion, namely that all written material should be viewed with the same skeptical eye. I don't really see that the advent of community created documentation really changes anything at all. It could just as ...[text shortened]... mation democratic. While it brings some new problems to the issue, it solves an awful lot too!
That's true, but not completely true. Most written material does not change once written. A wikipedia article can be wonderful one day but if you cite it you run the risk of it no longer being the wonderful article you saw when someone checks up on you.
Originally posted by MarinkatombI disagree completely. If you want up to date info then look at articles and journals. Due to the fact anybody can write anything on wikipedia it pretty much nullifies any usefulness. It's appealing to the lowest common denominator, which is not a step forward. There's a reason why it's so hard to get any work published and that reason is removed with wikipedia.
Any fears you have about the content of wikipedia (if you have any, i don't think you said you did...) have to be followed to their logical conclusion, namely that all written material should be viewed with the same skeptical eye. I don't really see that the advent of community created documentation really changes anything at all. It could just as ...[text shortened]... mation democratic. While it brings some new problems to the issue, it solves an awful lot too!
Originally posted by icantwriteIt's not hard to get work published. It's hard to get work published in certain publications.
I disagree completely. If you want up to date info then look at articles and journals. Due to the fact anybody can write anything on wikipedia it pretty much nullifies any usefulness. It's appealing to the lowest common denominator, which is not a step forward. There's a reason why it's so hard to get any work published and that reason is removed with wikipedia.
Due to the fact anybody can write anything on wikipedia it pretty much nullifies any usefulness.
Hardly. It just means you need to check anything you find there with some other source.
Wikipedia provides something standard sources cannot; detailed information in instants on any topic if you're on the computer. Further you can show the articles to other people via the internet. This is completely impossible for journal articles which require a lengthy library visit to a specialized library or a subscription to the magazine just to look at the article in question.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI suppose you're right. I've got an Athenes subscription so I don't find it hard to find good journals, but most people might find it a little more difficult. I just urge anyone that uses it to triple check any facts just in case.
It's not hard to get work published. It's hard to get work published in certain publications.
[b]Due to the fact anybody can write anything on wikipedia it pretty much nullifies any usefulness.
Hardly. It just means you need to check anything you find there with some other source.
Wikipedia provides something standard sources cannot; de ...[text shortened]... pecialized library or a subscription to the magazine just to look at the article in question.[/b]