Tangled Metal wrote:kwackers wrote:mattheus wrote:OMG. If the *internet* is inconsistent, we may as well give up now. Civilisation is foobared - let alone accurate CUK forum debate
Well the whole point of Wiki is that it can be edited by anyone.
All MM has to do is edit the article to show that a different viewpoint exists and provide his reference.
Easy peasy and one of the reasons I'm a fan of it.
AIUI wikipedia has an editing process that has different levels of access. New contributors I believe, and I could be misled here, have a vetting or modding process to go through, they can't necessarily change what is already there. Others have more rights.
I know a guy who apparently has rights to delete or modify parts of wikipedia pages without any oversee by the organisation. AIUI he has a side interest in reverting political party's activists edits back to what was there before. Or those of businesses or celebrities.
Personally I don't know if I agree this open source encyclopedia site is wholly a good idea. There's no credentials given for contributors. It relies on people reviewing sources and editing/ correcting any errors. Does that happen? What is tbe status of sources? You read a peer reviewed, academic publication you can mostly trust the process. You read a wikipedia referenced source there's no check on it, it's not peer reviewed by academics with weight of reputation in the field.
I wondered how accurate the stuff on Wikipedia was. A while ago I sat down with a friend who is a prof of AI at the Sorbonne and asked her to look at articles related to her spheres of knowledge. She said they were accurate and well written. She's a pretty serious academic being the only woman on the science committee of a fairly high powered EU "think tank" and also an editor at Springer, a leading academic publisher. In other words the articles passed muster regarding peer review.