[oclug] wikipedia

[Ross Jordan]

[sigh, why do a respond to an obvious troll]

It would seem Brad Barnett, on Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 01:58:46PM -0400, wrote:
> 
> 
> Respond to this then, Bill, as a starter.
> 
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:43:22 -0400
> Andy Civil <andycivil at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > All these references are trustworthy and informative:
> > 
> > http://www.videohelp.com/glossary
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvd
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc
> > 
> 
> Wikipedia?!  Trustworthy?!  Are you utterly, completely, and totally
> insane? ;)
> 
> I'm sorry, but I can't put it any other way.  The Wikipedia is absolutely
> the _least_ trustworthy encyclopedic source you could ever imagine.  
> 
> For example, 12 seconds before Croombe visits the Wikipedia page you list
> above, a vandal could modify the entire page with utterly false and
> completely absurd data.. that would seem truthful to Croombe.


And 12 seconds later, it could be corrected. Case in point, a friend
of mine went and vandalized a certain wikipedia entry on a religious
(controversial topic). He clicked submit and sent me the URL via an
instant messenger. By the time I reacted, opened the link and viewed
the page (<30s), someone had gone and _fixed_ the content. This really
amazed me.

Using the same logic on open source development, one should also be
able to conclude that the open source development model is far
inferior to the proprietary model -- since any random vandal can
insert a backdoor into the code and we _trust_ the random code we
download.

Yes, clearly there can be defects, bugs, ommisions, agenda ... but
no less than for any officially published content which doesn't have the
benefit of many eyes making all bugs shallow.

For me, wikipedia has become one of the most useful resources on the
internet. Sure, if I'm reading a topic about president bush or some
religion I turn up my sceptic meter a little higher, but overall it is a
tremendous resource whose benefits far far outweigh its drawbacks (like
the internet itsel).

> It's the blathering of fools distorting the wisdom of a few... with the
> false legitimacy that only the media and urban legend can create.

Hmm, I think you've aptly described how this thread will turn out =)

-Ross