On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Joseph Reagle reagle@mit.edu wrote:
This confusion about "truth" is tiresome [1]. It is completely possible for their to be a single objective (ontological) reality and corresponding *truth*, but to appreciate that we each have our own (epistemic) *perspective* and *understanding* which is imperfect -- as Wales indicates. I'm beginning to suspect that po-mo and conservative pundits continue this misunderstanding with each other so they can feel provocative or get attention. Macha says "there are many truths" and Keen states "when you democratize this, truth is the casualty." Oh, for heaven's sake: shame on both of them.
Keen's book was sloppy; my favorite critic of Wikipedia continues to be Robert McHenry who notes "I don't question the fact that there's a great deal of very good very solid information in Wikipedia, it could hardly be otherwise. By sheer chance there would be there some good stuff in there. My criticism is that there is some very very bad stuff, and there's no way to tell the difference" (30 minute). The "sheer chance" bit is true and made me laugh --
Robert McHenry is actually one of my favorite critics for just about about anything; and as an encyclopedist himself, he's in a fairly unique position for thoughtfully criticizing Wikipedia -- he knows precisely how the alternative model works. I kept hoping that he would accept an invitation to speak at a Wikimania, but to no avail so far.
-- phoebe