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

[Ian Woollard]

On 29/05/2009, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> Chances are very low that someone who wants to burn hydrogen is going to go
> to Wikipedia to find out how much they need to burn.  Likewise, chances are
> low that someone's going to use Wikipedia's information to build an
> aircraft.

The chances that somebody will solely consult the wikipedia for
prescription information is very low also. The chances that somebody
will be vandalising the article at the same time is enormously lower
still, and that the prescribing person doesn't notice that it has been
vandalised is lower again.

Even if that happens, it cannot be said that it is the wikipedia is at
fault. We do not condone vandalism, nor do we condone using
information based solely on the wikipedia in life-threatening
scenarios; and I don't think that any other encyclopedia is different
in this.

This is a ridiculous over-reaction to something that has never
happened in real life, and is extremely unlikely to occur, and even if
it did happen would not be the responsibility, in any sensible way, of
the wikipedia.

> This is where the common sense comes in: some types of information are more
> likely than others, *in practice*, to be used in situations where someone
> can get hurt.

Is there such thing as a situation where somebody cannot get hurt?

And what about the potential uses of information that could save
people's lives? One of the uses is to *check* a prescription, and this
is a valid use that is much less likely to cause harm.

-- 
-Ian Woollard

"All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."