[Foundation-l] Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/23/2010 2:43:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk writes:


> 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. >>
> 

"Importance" is not relevant to "authoritative" they are x and y on the 
graph.  But I think it's mean it doesn't matter whether an article on the West 
Wing is "authoritative" because no one will die over it.  Which is the same 
straw man you want to throw up... murder! rape! death! child porn!

Straw men and extreme arguments.  Any person who believes anything, in any 
source, whatsoever from Aardvark to Zoology, without corraboration, is 
simply not living in the world of today.  Wikipedia is as accurate, if not more 
so, then almost any other souce in existence.  Not only as accurate, but 
citing the sources which underlie the claims therein made, and providing links 
directly to those sources, which no other competitive entity can claim.

*That* you choose to view things differently and expect dogma and the 
subsequent abdication of critical thinking, is not the failing of the project.  
Each person is responsible for their own reliance on their own chosen 
sources.  Anyone who chooses not to rely on Wikipedia, can instead rely on their 
copy of the 1982 EB if they wish.  Anyone who chooses to rely on Wikipedia had 
better start learning how the system works if they want to criticize it.

W