[WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

[Delirium]

Charles Matthews wrote:
> Delirium wrote:
>   
>> As far as I understand, the main stumbling blocks have been that nobody 
>> can agree on who should make the database, what the process will be for 
>> verifying information, what access policies should be like, who would be 
>> responsible if there were errors in it, what constitutes evidence worth 
>> including, etc., etc. Seems doctors are voting with their feet and 
>> deciding that Wikipedia's attempt at tackling all those is at least 
>> better than nothing.
>>
>>   
>>     
> This (medical info) case is certainly an interesting instance of WP 
> "undercutting" what people would generally agree was a well-founded 
> desire to have authoritative information.
I agree the desire for authoritative information is well-founded, but 
you can go too far and have paralysis: since nobody's yet agreed on what 
the most perfect, most authoritative source of information would be, we 
shouldn't have one at all? Surely building *something* is better, which 
is basically what Wikipedia has done, with tentative and in-progress 
answers to all those tricky questions of authority and process. Maybe a 
medical organization can build something better than Wikipedia for their 
field, with more authoritative information and a better process. But 
they haven't, despite a decades-long headstart on us in the planning 
department. Rather than undercutting, maybe we'll actually stimulate a 
renewed sense of urgency to produce an alternative?

-Mark