Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:35:41 -0500 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
<14CD96B653ED4DDFAA31CCC1954DA403@Corneliussen> |
Content-transfer-encoding: |
7bit |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> From: Finkelman, Paul
> I do not think it is about being academically PC; it is
> about worrying that what is on Wikipedia is often
> wrong and there is no test to know what it wrong and
> what is not and it can be changed by anyone. That makes
> it dangerous to use if you want to truly understand something.
Again: Yes, it's undeniably true that Wikipedia is often wrong. Again: Yes,
that crowd-sourced, ever-evolving online phenomenon is dangerous to trust as
a direct source of facts for use in scholarly writing. But what about its
potential as a convenient starting point when a complicated investigative
side road suddenly appears? Or as a route to the important _other_ sources,
often quite credible, that Wikipedia articles regularly cite and link to? Or
as a means to locate and study photos or illustrations that might aid a
truth search? Is every single effort "to truly understand something" really
so rigidly constrained in all of its stages? What I perceive as at least
implied in some of these messages is a final, total judgment that
crowd-sourced Wikipedia merits no use of any kind in any circumstances. I
hope my perception is as wrong as any such judgment obviously would be.
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
|
|