[WikiEN-l] a valid criticism

[actionforum at comcast.net]

-------------- Original message -------------- 
> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2005/10/the_amorality_o.php 
> 
> I don't agree with much of this critique, and I certainly do not share 
> the attitude that Wikipedia is better than Britannica merely because it 
> is free. It is my intention that we aim at Britannica-or-better 
> quality, period, free or non-free. We should strive to be the best. 
> 
> But the two examples he puts forward are, quite frankly, a horrific 
> embarassment. [[Bill Gates]] and [[Jane Fonda]] are nearly unreadable crap. 
> 
> Why? What can we do about it? 
> 
> --Jimbo 

I haven't looked at the criticism or the articles, but your comment about
readability, reminds me of several other articles.  However, I think you
may be emphasizing the wrong standard of quality.  Instead of the type
of quality you can only get with a uniform editoral staff, I think instead
you should emphasize value and information.  Even an poorly written
article can be more valuable than an encyclopedia Brittanica article.
The article may have useful links to other information, it may
be a crystalization of a controversy or conflict, i.e., in some kind
of compromise state.  There is information there.  Also, don't
underestimate the value of the talk page, there are arguments,
POVs and other information there that increase the total value.

I would not hesitate to send students to wikipedia for this
reason, I would have them also take advantage of the talk
page, etc.  They are more likely to get all POVs on wikipedia.
They should also learn to view information with a healthy
dose of skepticism, and to verify information themselves.
Wikipedia's state of flux, conflict and poor readability,
will all be heathy reminders of this, while Britannica may
lull the student into an uncritical trust.
             -- Silverback