Simson L. Garfinkel in Technology Review argues that Wikipedia has refined truth. From “Wikipedia and the Meaning of Truth:”
“On Wikipedia, objective truth isn’t all that important, actually. What makes a fact or statement fit for inclusion is that it appeared in some other publication–ideally, one that is in English and is available free online. ‘The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth,’ states Wikipedia’s official policy on the subject.”
Read on. What do you think? Is this an accurate description of the situation? Does this match your own thinking?
. . . The encyclopedias, they are a-changin’ . . .
And, this isn’t just an ordinary encyclopedia, this is the Encyclopaedia Britannica . . . and it’s going wiki.
Read more here, “Encyclopaedia Britannica goes –Gasp!– Wiki,” from The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Happy New Year, everyone!
It’s a new year, so why not a new search engine??
From BBC News, Wikipedia announces that it’s moving into the world of community-run search engines. For more, read, “Wikipedia creator turns to search.”
Now, for something a little bit different . . .
The Wall Street Journal invited Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales, and Dale Hoiberg, editor-in-chief of Britannica, to a debate . . . via email. And, get this, they agreed! Not sure what, if anything, this adds to the substance of the debate already going . . . and going . . . about this topic, but there are some rather catty email exchanges involved that make for almost tabloid-style reading and show that email is probably not the best place to engage in debates and other similar meaningful discussions.
“Will Wikipedia Mean the End of Traditional Encyclopedias?” The Wall Street Journal
The Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica battle continues, and Nature is being called to task, to put it lightly.
The title of the article says it all: “Nature Mag Cooked Wikipedia Study,” by Andrew Orlowski, The Register
See the end of the 2-page article for more links to articles in The Register about this story as it developed over the last several months.
“Last year, the contributor with the most articles featured on the
site’s homepage was 17-year-old user ‘Lord Emsworth,’ still in high
school. He wrote long, detailed entries on British nobility. Users
addressed him as ‘your lordship.'”
Surprised? Entertained? Read more from the article, “Mondo Wikipedia,” by Rachel Aviv, The Village Voice.
And, here’s another article about Wikipedia, for your reading pleasure:
“Can Wikipedia Survive its Own Success?” from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
So, what say you? Unproductive hand-wringing or legitimate concerns?
What does the future hold for Wikipedia and other emerging technologies
that are part of the so-called Web 2.0? (What’s Web 2.0, I hear you ask? See post on December 8, 2005 and be enlightened.)
Ok, one more bit of old news that I must share with you. Did you hear about the article in Nature that investigated the accuracy of science articles in Wikipedia and in The Encyclopaedia Britannica? If not, here it is:
And, here’s an NPR program to listen to that addresses some of the issues introduced in the article:
“Assessing Wikipedia’s Accuracy” from All Things Considered, NPR, December 15, 2005