On 12/8/05, Sean Barrett <sean(a)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