On 12/8/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthony DiPierro stated for the record:
I don't understand why people are taking offense to this in the first place. In my opinion, *of course* the New York Times shouldn't be using Wikipedia to check information. Is someone here suggesting that they should? It seems to me like a ridiculous proposition in the first place.
Anthony
So should anybody, anywhere, be using Wikipedia for any purpose?
Sure, but not for fact checking. For getting a broad overview, maybe. For pointing you to other sources, sure. But not for fact checking.
If so, then why are the editors at the New York Times "of course" different from those that should?
They're not different. No one should be using Wikipedia to check facts.
(I suppose if you go through the history and find the exact diff where the fact was added, and it turns out it was added by a Wikipedian who you personally trust, then you could make an exception. But in general, you shouldn't be assuming something is true simply because you read it on the Internet.)
Anthony