On TechRepublic: Why Linux will triumph over Windows
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 35 of 110:
Next »
« Previous
can't be
A descriptive dictionary is one the purports to define words as they are actually used. a prescriptive dictionary is one that purports to define words as they should be used. If a dictionary tries to do both, or neither, it looses some aspect of its authority because the user is left guessing--the dictionary becomes mediocre.

Likewise, a good encyclopedia must make an editorial stand. Suppose we have an article about a certin spiritual believe system: do we call it a a religion? A cult? Fact? If an edited encyclopedia calls something a cult, we can infer that our subject is probably a marginal believe system because otherwise perhaps we know that that encyclopedia consistently uses the word "religion." If a Wikipedia article calls something a cult, we can't infer anything: perhaps the author is an athiest who calls all religion cult. Perhaps he is a christian who calls all non-christian beliefs cults. Maybe the author has an understanding of the word "cult" that most readers don't have. No editor has mitigated, so we are left guessing. One need read only a few wikipedia articles to see that people are coming from all directions (which can be interesting in its own right, but that's not what we want in a trustworthy encyclopedia).

That is the value of a consistent editorial voice. It brings a layer of knowledge that a wiki, because of its nature, can't hope to achieve.
Posted by: rrrr   Posted on: 12/05/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

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
Premier Vendor Content Whitepapers, webcasts & resources from our Power Center Sponsors
advertisement
  • Smart Tech Expert advice on innovations in healthcare and the green technologies that make it happen. Find out more
  • Smart Business Discussion and advice on management issues that revolve around making your world smarter and more useful. More Smart Advice
  • Smart People The best and worst moves in the management and strategy trenches. Learn More