On MovieTome: Top Ten: Most Bizarre Twilight Merch
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 43 of 110:
Next »
« Previous
Information-gathering actually HAS changed, deal with it
It's funny that there are critics jumping on this so hard. But that's just because they don't like the New Information World Order, which has come whether they like it or not.

In the Seigenthaler case, it did get fixed (not as soon as it should have, for linkage reasons more than any, it seems) and would have gotten fixed. I like Wales' idea for an additional safeguard, but even that isn't going to stop error.

But to the critics: Nothing will stop error, either on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Count up all the errors in every newspapaer, magazine and TV and radio broadcast every day. Guess that means the whole "journalism thing" is corrupt and ought not to be trusted, huh?

In the Curry case, it was brought to attention, fixed, and now Curry is receiving the appropriate sanctioning that the New Information World Order uses to keep accounts -- he's being hammered on blogs and his personal credibility is reduced. Case closed.

Overall, the criticism sounds like a bunch of air about nothing by people who would desperately like the media world to go back to the way it was, where a relative few controlled the reins and were "believed" and "trusted."

Well, ha on them. First, were not going back there, so get over it. Second, even back in those good ole days of stark mind-control, the "authorities" weren't always right.

The nature of information and its corruptibility and the fragility of human endeavor haven't changed and aren't going to now. However, the tools of collection and dissemination have changed and will continue to change, which means we'll be encountering new versions of this same old problem time and time again.

Stop whingeing and wringing your hands, and move on. It's always been true: Be careful what you trust. Find multiple sources. Use information resources for their strengths, because they all have weaknesses.
Posted by: Sioen   Posted on: 12/05/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

The only changes needed...  nucrash | 12/05/05
Tragic!  unoriginal_sin | 12/05/05
Screening in Linux vs. Wikipedia  bhartman36 | 12/05/05
"an editorial board with subject knowledge."  voice_of_all_reason | 12/05/05
Credibility  bhartman36 | 12/05/05
The power of vetted content  tic swayback | 12/05/05
Not quite...  JustAMuggle | 12/05/05
With Linux, someone is in charge.  John L. Ries | 12/05/05
Is there really a rush?  bhartman36 | 12/06/05
As usual...  voice_of_all_reason | 12/05/05
Wikipedia is interesting, but should be considered with a grain of salt  CobraA1 | 12/05/05
A grain of salt  eric.d.dobbs@... | 12/05/05
Wikipedia is a microcosm of WWW at large  yyuko@... | 12/05/05
I agree  etheran | 12/05/05
the source?  timeofmind | 12/05/05
But credibility is relative  John L. Ries | 12/05/05
give proof!  timeofmind | 12/05/05
give proof!  timeofmind | 12/05/05
No need  John L. Ries | 12/05/05
bad example  timeofmind | 12/06/05
bad example  timeofmind | 12/06/05
how much do you know?  timeofmind | 12/05/05
Not much  John L. Ries | 12/05/05
disagree  timeofmind | 12/05/05
correction  timeofmind | 12/05/05
Intellectual suicide.  Zinoron | 12/07/05
you missed it  timeofmind | 12/07/05
Can I imagine? There is no need.  Zinoron | 12/08/05
not quite  rrrr | 12/05/05
Not ready for prime time  NobodyHome | 12/05/05
Did you do anything besides read the article  nucrash | 12/05/05
Yikes!  BitTwiddler | 12/05/05
Wikipedia's inherent flaw  rrrr | 12/05/05
Would both not be good?  bghost | 12/05/05
can't be  rrrr | 12/05/05
hmm....  bghost | 12/07/05
Not enough  John L. Ries | 12/05/05
It's crap!  Tezcatlipoca | 12/05/05
I agree  timeofmind | 12/05/05
You haven't really won a debate...  John L. Ries | 12/05/05
I agree  timeofmind | 12/05/05
Anonymous Users can EDIT Wikipedia?  mwagner@... | 12/05/05
Information-gathering actually HAS changed, deal with it  Sioen | 12/05/05
The "New Information World Order"  bhartman36 | 12/05/05
Trust  timeofmind | 12/05/05
Valuable Information  bhartman36 | 12/06/05
way off  timeofmind | 12/06/05
Information vs. truth  bhartman36 | 12/06/05
You missed it. Try reading my post.  timeofmind | 12/06/05
Re: You missed it. Try reading my post.  bhartman36 | 12/06/05
Re: You missed it. Try reading my post.  bhartman36 | 12/06/05
again - points missed  timeofmind | 12/06/05
On Colors, Craziness, and Cures  bhartman36 | 12/06/05
ok, this is good  timeofmind | 12/07/05
What algorithm do you use to arrive at the "zero credibility" result?  dcstrain | 12/05/05
if(credibility == unknown) { credibility = 0; }  CobraA1 | 12/06/05
Credibility Equation  bhartman36 | 12/06/05
fine line  timeofmind | 12/06/05
The Difference between Credible and True  bhartman36 | 12/06/05
two different things  timeofmind | 12/07/05
actually, sorry  timeofmind | 12/07/05
The Difference between Credible and True  bhartman36 | 12/06/05
Credibility Equation  bhartman36 | 12/06/05
WOW  jswift | 12/05/05
It's Like a Fungus  Lisanne001 | 12/05/05
Opinion of a fact? Right!  NeverLift | 12/05/05
open source  rsars | 12/05/05
Can you ever be 100% sure about any information?  John_Doe69 | 12/05/05
This is the other end of that stick  NeverLift | 12/05/05
encyclopedias contain facts?  timeofmind | 12/05/05
facts  timeofmind | 12/05/05
It's not a problem, it's a "feature"  DanielB | 12/05/05
How Does One Edit 500,000 articles?  Lisanne001 | 12/05/05
Delegation  John L. Ries | 12/05/05
Reality is a matter of perception - Wikipedia reflects 'our' perception  benram | 12/05/05
'our' perception is psychotic  rrrr | 12/05/05
Who gets to determine what is true?  Flash00 | 12/05/05
good point!  timeofmind | 12/06/05
nobody  rrrr | 12/06/05
the source is not important  timeofmind | 12/06/05
A true testament to wikipedia's success  timeofmind | 12/05/05
Two Instances. Do you believe that they are minority circumstances?  Lisanne001 | 12/05/05
refer to the first report in the article  timeofmind | 12/05/05
I disagree  CobraA1 | 12/05/05
bad example  timeofmind | 12/05/05
Good example  CobraA1 | 12/06/05
I agree, mostly  timeofmind | 12/06/05
people  timeofmind | 12/05/05
That is like saying...  Zinoron | 12/07/05
Perhaps Not Even 10,000 Editors  Lisanne001 | 12/05/05
it's left to the public  timeofmind | 12/05/05
Perhaps Not Even 10,000 Editors  rrrr | 12/05/05
The wikipedia is a teenager  daver_z | 12/05/05
OK, I'll Buy That Analogy  Lisanne001 | 12/05/05
a suggestion  f3773t | 12/05/05
rating system  timeofmind | 12/06/05
re: rating system  f3773t | 12/06/05
authorities  timeofmind | 12/06/05
backup copies  f3773t | 12/06/05
I see  timeofmind | 12/06/05
pending wikipedia debacle  top_manager | 12/05/05
time  timeofmind | 12/06/05
rating system above  timeofmind | 12/06/05
which articles?  eric.d.dobbs@... | 12/06/05
This isnt causing skeptics  ickusslime@... | 12/07/05
Correction  ickusslime@... | 12/07/05
Considering that...  Zinoron | 12/07/05
Growing pains for Wikipedia  paradoxlie-freeswim@... | 12/07/05
your brilliant  timeofmind | 12/08/05
Wikipedia is great  Sectusempra | 02/17/06

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

SmartPlanet

  • Thought-provoking progressive ideas on diverse topics that intersect with technology, business, and life, and matter to the world at large. Visit SmartPlanet
  • More from IBM
  • Innovate your business' process model, play against the market, compete against others on our scoreboards and WIN! Try INNOV8 2.0: A BPM Simulator
  • Enabling Real-World Business Transformation through IBM Service Management Read the EMA Analyst Report
Click Here