Stephen Colbert in the past has had his audience make gross
manipulations on Wikipedia (I think at one point adding new countries)
to show how untrustworthy the information on Wikipedia can be.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "jacquesdebierue"
> --- In email@example.com, "Gonzalo Baeza" <gbaeza@> wrote:
> > I remember how in the last newspaper I worked for the editors sent
> > out a memo warning every reporter not to use Wikipedia unless they
> > could corroborate its information with other sources.
> > Wikipedia is good in that it fills a void that's not covered by
> > conventional encyclopedias, especially when it comes to pop culture.
> > Nonetheless, you have to to use it with caution. The way it
> > operates, it's too vulnerable to deliberate misinformation.
> It depends on the topic. If those who don't know much (or anything)
> correct those that do in order to manipulate the facts, then it
> becomes a stupid battle. The method discourages people with great
> knowledge from contributing. The quality, therefore, is highly variable.
> I think Wikipedia is especially good when the material is obscure or
> specialized and a guy or a few guys who are knowledgeable writes up
> the page. Knowledge is not democratically distributed, alas.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 11 Dec 2008 EST