On 24/10/2010 02:17, Robert S. Horning wrote:
On 10/23/2010 03:42 PM, wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk
wrote:
If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information
contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a
calculator that every once in a while, and quite randomly, adds up two
numbers wrongly, such a calculator wouldn't be authoritative in its
results, even when it added the numbers correctly.
For some things, like who played who in 'West Wing', it is of little
importance. For medical issues the accuracy is highly important, and if
one can't guarantee that each page load contains the accurate
information then one shouldn't be pretending that it is in any way
authoritative.
I would hope that somebody from NASA trying to plot spaceship
trajectories around the Solar System isn't going to be using data from
Wikipedia for those calculations either... or an engineer doing some
structural load calculations using information about material strengths
from a Wikipedia article. I don't see medical issues as being anything
of a unique case or something that needs to be especially pointed out
other than it is foolish to use information from Wikipedia or for that
matter any encyclopedia as "authoritative" without at the very least
checking the sources used to obtain that information. Wikipedia isn't a
replacement for the CRC Handbook, nor the Physician's Desk Reference.
It shouldn't be either although both are excellent sources of
information for factual data that can be used in a Wikipedia article.
One would certainly hope that engineers weren't copying data from
wikipedia. The issue though isn't the use put by Engineers and Doctors
but rather the use put by normal people that are clicking on a search
engine's 1st link, and where the site is saying Encyclopaedia and there
is a general assumption that the information that you read is accurate
baring any cultural bias.