[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Wikipedia and Wikispecies

Hi Demetrios,

"Free info" for the masses is cool.
But to allow another author to @$&^ with someone's intellectual property
is NOT cool.

Playing the role of devil's advocate for a moment........

I see nothing productive, either from a scientific point of view, or from
a free speech point of view, for  Wilkipedia to allow Alan Feduccia, PhD
to come in and edit or delete a prior contribution on bird evolution
written by Mark Norell, PhD (or visa versa).

Maybe I'm missing something from your  posts.  If so, please correct me.

"Who could have possibly envisioned an erection - election - in Iraq at
this point in history?" - George W. Bush, Washington D.C.,  January 10,

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:36:05 -0500 Demetrios Vital
<demetrios.vital@gmail.com> writes:
> > And that's the problem.  There's no assurance the information's 
> trustworthy,
> > nor is there any way to know whatever you write there won't be 
> deleted or
> > altered by someone who knows less.  Makes the whole venture 
> worthless in my
> > mind.
> The point is that it is free, not worthless.  Professional 
> journals,
> encyclopedias, and textbooks are expensive, inaccessible to many, 
> and
> usually not written in, say, Esperanto.  (There are even a very, 
> very
> small number of Wiki articles in Klingon.  Yes, Klingon.)  Have you
> seen how expensive children's books are these days?!  I can't 
> afford
> many of them, and I'm a working adult!
> I'll continue with children's books as an example.  How many kids'
> books are there with terrible illustrations, inaccurate info, and 
> high
> price tags?  Lots, though, thankfully, fewer and fewer with the 
> former
> two.  So just because a kids' book is published with some
> inaccuracies, does that make the venture of reading worthless?  No 
> one
> would say it would.  And unlike kids' books, you can change 
> Wikipedia
> if inaccurate info is entered.
> Now, wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed journal, and nor should it be. 
> But if some of those peer-reviewing professionals shared their 
> basic
> knowledge for free in this community, it probably would not be
> deleted.  Wikipedia has been around since the late nineties and has
> seen its share of edit wars.  (One founding member told me about 
> the
> huge edit wars between German and Polish members over proper names 
> of
> certain towns!)  The vast majority of members strive for accuracy, 
> and
> if you'll notice, there are no creationist ideas in any entry.  
> People
> with less-than-ideal stances on education and knowledge are weeded
> out.  Smart people who know what they are talkign about are 
> generally
> not weeded out.  That's why the entry on Dinosaurs actually uses 
> terms
> like "non-avian dinosaurs" and seems to responsibly present ideas
> gleaned from paleontology.
> Imagine a journal peer-reviewed by the world.  Would you add or 
> edit
> entries on Victorian period British aristocrats?  No, but the
> 14-year-old who does has produced historically accurate and
> well-written articles that have been fact-checked by historians. 
> Where else could a 14 year old easily have the ear of the world to
> share their passion?  What about the braniac 14-year-old dino
> enthusiasts?  SVP is expensive, Wikipedia is not.
> Anyway, the rest of this belongs off-list.  Please consider sharing
> your (plural) expertise with the world.
> Goodnight,
> Demetrios