On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair <adhair(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony
<wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM,
<wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
Taking this problem seriously, how can we
mitigate misplaced reliance?
Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The
information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source?
How is that relevant?
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
On Sun, Oct
24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
Taking this problem seriously, how can we
mitigate misplaced reliance?
Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The
information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
We define what encyclopedia means at this point, and research has shown
that more "professional" encyclopedias also contain errors, the
difference is that you can't fix them easily.
Two other differences are that biases in encyclopedias are generally
easier to discover (in large part because they are usually consistent
across an entire article), and that you can find out who to blame for
them (either generally or specifically depending on the seriousness
and willfulness of the error).
That said, any suggestions which adequately represents
the power and
utility of our product, but avoids implication of inerrancy?
I wouldn't want to waste much time on this as it has zero chance of
being followed, but something like "the free bulletin board" would
probably be more accurate.