Oldak Quill wrote:
On 30/03/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Wikipedia's reference desk gets a nice mention on Boing Boing:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/30/nyt_changes_backdate.html
It also claims that the New York Times changed a published article without mentioning it on the page or issuing a correction. That's very interesting in the context of the recent discussion on the reliability and durability of web-based citations.
It deserves recognition. It is one of the most useful and effective tools on Wikipedia to our users. Seems to work very well too: even relatively complex questions are answered quickly and fully.
Thanks for the link.
I agree. Certain elements in the established press are all too happy to exagerate the importance of Wikipedia's errors. Regularly highlighting situations where the myth that traditional sources are always reliable is brought into question can have some positive effects.
It's an effective counterplay to defending our own articles in that it tends to level the playing field. It helps too when we maintain a record of our own corrections.
Ec