[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory

[Delirium]

doc wrote:
> So, replace all such specialist elected and accountable bodies (or 
> bodies accountable to the elected) with a wiki? Replace the expert, who 
> wrote the textbook, with the anarchy of the truth according to whoever 
> made the last edit?
> 
> I think I'll stay off the koolaid and stick with democracy, 
> professionalism, and expertise - yes it can be, on some occasions, 
> stupid, biased and myopic, but it is still the best system we've got.

On average, I'd say it isn't the best system we've got, and that 
Wikipedia is a better system. That is, if we're discussing the fairly 
narrow issue of basic coverage of primary-level history, not detailed 
coverage of specialist topics. The basic Wikipedia coverage of the 
subject matter in a typical high-school history textbook is, as far as I 
can tell, generally better than the coverage in the textbooks 
themselves. This varies by area, and there are perhaps some 
jurisdictions that use very good textbooks, but I'd say on average the 
textbooks are worse. If you include the textbooks of non-western 
countries, the textbooks are so much worse as to not even be a fair 
comparison.

Of course, I don't get most of my specialist, higher-level knowledge 
from Wikipedia in my field of research; I'll trust a book or survey 
article by a well-known specialist in the field first. But if I just 
want an overview of the US participation in World War II, you can bet 
I'll trust Wikipedia's article before I trust the Texas Board of 
Education's approved version; and if I want an article on the Thai 
monarchy, I'll trust Wikipedia's article before I trust the Thai 
government's approved version.

-Mark