[WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun

[William Pietri]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 30/03/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> When people catch us in errors, aren't we better off
>> going with positive responses that begin with, "Yes, exactly..."?
>>     
>
>
> You got it. "Of course. Wikipedia is not *reliable* in the sense it's
> all checked. It can't be by the process it's written by. You have to
> think when you're reading. But if you do, it's good and useful."
>
> ("But what if people take it as gospel?" "We can't and don't promise
> to think for people. You have to do that for yourself.")
>
> I take this line every time this comes up - live radio, if not TV -
> and it works fine. It would have worked here too.
>   


Exactly.

In that first bit, I like to say, "Just like anything else on the 
internet, you can't turn your brain off." That's awfully hard to deny. 
And then I can point out Wikipedia's advantages over almost anything 
else on the Internet, like a comprehensive record of every edit, an 
attached discussion page, a way to check out the record of any 
contributor, and transparent policies that you can help shape.

Another approach is to point out that errors and omissions are the 
engine that has driven Wikipedia's growth. People see a mistake and they 
fix it. Then they realize with amazement, that this isn't an 
encyclopedia produced by some mysterious "them"; it's us!

And it's always fun to toss the complaint back in their lap. "Well if 
you knew it was a mistake, why didn't you fix it?" That's not entirely 
fair, of course. But neither is the expectation of perfection that 
underlies a lot of those grumbles.

William