--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> He's got a more recent piece at
>
<http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/02/community_and_h.php>.
> It's
> pretty damning - and tears apart that Nature article
> that reportedly
> claimed that Wikipedia was as good as Britannica.
> Clearly it's not.
Yes, but those who reply to his piece also tear his criticism apart a bit. Specifically, Wikipedia is not the ultimate source but a quick, easily accessible reference and plays that role rather well, perhaps better than the subscription-based EB. If accuracy is an issue, the counter-argument goes, the reader should check other sources. Thus, if speed and easy access is the issue, Wikipedia is adequate, but if accuracy is an issue it is invariably "caveat emptor."
I think these are valid points - the ideal of one 100% authoritative and 100% comprehensive source of all knowledge is simply a pipe dream - and using that ideal to judge the existing sources of knowledge misses an important aspect of knowledge production and dissemination - transaction costs.
Quality of information is always weighed against the cost of producing that information, and the purpose for which that information is used. If one is looking for a quick reference to rudimenatary facts - a carefully researched and documented source that comes at a considerable cost is surely an overkill. If the quality is important, however, (eg. making a decison involving high risk) - relying on quick and inexpensively produced sources borders on irresponsibility of the user. It is no different from people buying cheap substitutes - which otherwise have a legitimate place - in situations when they should have invested in quality, and then complaining that they have been cheated. In reality, they cheated themselves by exercising poor judgment.
In short, the issue is not whether there should be a low-cost easily accessible but not always the most reliable reference publication - but how that publication is used and to what end. In the same vein, it makes no sense criticizing, say, a children's encyclopaedia, even though the quality of information it contains does not even match that of the Wikipedia.
However, if someone uses a children's enyclopaedia to, say, make a policy decision - that has nothing to do with the quality of the publication, and everything to do with the judgment and responsibility of the user.
OTOH, Nicolas Carr makes a valid point that the hype extolling the virtues of amateur-produced work vs that produced by experts is rubbish. Such rubbish is dangerous and should be vigorously debunked.
Wojtek
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com