Joe: My objection on that count, I suppose, is definitional. The thing calls itself an encyclopedia ? veracity and completeness are implied. Thus my warning for those who would rely on Wiki as a source.
Robert McHenry, former editor in chief of the Encyclop?dia Britannica and author of How to Know, captures some of my objections with TechCentralStation article:
In other words, the process allows Wikipedia to approach the truth asymptotically. The basis for the assertion that this is advantageous vis-?-vis the traditional method of editing an encyclopedia remains, however, unclear. …
It is true, unfortunately, that many encyclopedia users, like many encyclopedia reviewers, have low expectations. They are satisfied to find an answer to their questions. I would argue that more serious users, however, have two requirements: first, an answer to their questions; second, that those answers be correct. Of course, this may be just me. I have had the experience of making this argument before a roomful of sales executives and marketing people and being met with looks of bafflement on the one hand and dismissal on the other.
The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.
HT: Rockin’ Barry B.
