Well, I've been interested in the debate over Wikipedia for some time, and a day or two before I wrote the article, I listened to a lecture about Wikipedia that I thought was pretty interesting. So when I sat down to write, Wikipedia was on my mind.
Sometime in the next couple of days I'm going to put up a serious post about Wikipedia, just for contrast.
I think one thing that often gets overlooked in the discussion about Wikipedia is what it can teach us about concrete, fully supported, reliable reference material; i.e., that it doesn't exist. How do we know for a fact that the Britannica people know what they're talking about, anyway? We're just going by reputation. On Wikipedia we know we probably shouldn't trust the note on sword-wielding skeletons, except as a reflection of what complete crackpots think about the topic, and in its own way this enriches our research experience. Maybe we should extend that skepticism to the information we get passed down from the ivory towers, too. Within reason.
Not to miss the humor of your article, which was very funny. It just got me thinking.
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, please join the discussion and consider improving the article so that it meets the Wikipedia inclusion criteria.
Comments
I'm curious if this article was inspired by the deletion debates for Spinneweb or just by general Wikipedia insanity.
Posted by: Kyle M | April 19, 2006 08:33 AM
Well, I've been interested in the debate over Wikipedia for some time, and a day or two before I wrote the article, I listened to a lecture about Wikipedia that I thought was pretty interesting. So when I sat down to write, Wikipedia was on my mind.
Sometime in the next couple of days I'm going to put up a serious post about Wikipedia, just for contrast.
Posted by: Lore Sjoberg![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://slumbering.lungfish.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 19, 2006 08:53 AM
I think one thing that often gets overlooked in the discussion about Wikipedia is what it can teach us about concrete, fully supported, reliable reference material; i.e., that it doesn't exist. How do we know for a fact that the Britannica people know what they're talking about, anyway? We're just going by reputation. On Wikipedia we know we probably shouldn't trust the note on sword-wielding skeletons, except as a reflection of what complete crackpots think about the topic, and in its own way this enriches our research experience. Maybe we should extend that skepticism to the information we get passed down from the ivory towers, too. Within reason.
Not to miss the humor of your article, which was very funny. It just got me thinking.
Posted by: Quinn | April 19, 2006 10:29 AM
The flamingly serious comments to the joke article are actually funnier than the article itself. It's like two humor pieces in one! Thanks!
Posted by: Randal Cooper | April 19, 2006 12:29 PM
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, please join the discussion and consider improving the article so that it meets the Wikipedia inclusion criteria.
Posted by: Stev0 | April 19, 2006 03:25 PM