-----Original Message----- From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name] Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 02:13 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Blog finds WIkipedia makes better-informed public than BBC

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004665.html

Also, the availability of responsible discussion in alternative media offers at least a small contrary force to the surge of misinformation from traditional sources. As a result, those who consult Google or Wikipedia -- with an open-minded and skeptical attitude, of course -- are likely to be better informed than those who rely on sources like the BBC. Perhaps this is the best outcome that we will get, but it's not the best that we could hope for.

That's the difference all right. It is not that Wikipedia does not contain errors, but unlike the mainstream media and other authorities it is possible to correct them and, if there is doubt discuss the basis of the information.

No edit wars with Katie Couric, Lou Dobbs, or Dubya. If they get it wrong, too bad. No correction permitted and no inquiry into the validity of their pronouncement.

Fred