Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility

For those we lost, We will not forget 09/11/2001

“Our God given unalienable rights are given to us all as individuals. They tell us what we may do for ourselves, and they are the embodiment of liberty. The so-called rights that government gives to some of us are parcelled out to select groups as classes. They tell us what one class of people may require another to do for them, and they are the very essence of slavery.”
— Perri Nelson, February 9, 2010

A bheil Gàidhlig agaibh?

Wikipedia scrambles to regain credibility

Published Thu, Mar 8 2007 2:07 PM
Technorati Tags: Computers and Internet

Now that one of Wikipedia's high ranking editors has turned out to be a fraud, they're going to require people that claim credentials to prove they hold them. From MSNBC.com

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said in interviews by phone and instant message Wednesday from Japan that contributors still would be able to remain anonymous. But he said they should only be allowed to cite some professional expertise in a subject if those credentials have been verified.
"We always prefer to give a positive incentive rather than absolute prohibition, so that people can contribute without a lot of hassle," Wales wrote.
Wales suggested such a plan two years ago, but the idea suddenly gained currency after the recent discovery that a prolific Wikipedia contributor who wrote under the pen name "Essjay" and claimed to be a professor of theology turned out to be a 24-year-old college dropout, Ryan Jordan.

In his "defense" Mr. Jordan had this to say...

"It was, quite honestly, my impression that it was well known that I was not who I claimed to be, and that in the absence of any confirmation, no respectible (sic) publication would print it," he wrote.

Of course, implies that the answer to the question "Is Wikipedia a respectable publication?" is "No." After all Wikipedia had touted his credentials.

The anonymity of the site is a frequent cause of mischief — from juvenile vandalism of entries to the infamous case involving journalist John Seigenthaler Sr., who was incorrectly described as a suspect in the Kennedy assassinations. And that has raised concerns about the credibility of the site.

Like I've said before, I don't find Wikipedia credible anymore. I've tried to impress this on my son, who's currently in school and is encouraged to use Wikipedia as a source.

What I tell my son is that he should always try to see who's behind a statement. "Consider the source" and all that. That, and never rely on a single source when you're researching an important issue.

Single sources can lead you astray. Especially fraudulent sources or anonymous sources. This (requiring proof of claimed credentials) is a good move by Wikipedia.

Too bad it doesn't go far enough. I don't believe that anonymous sources should be accepted at all in an online encyclopedia. Anyone that edits an article in such a forum is making a claim to knowledge. And you just can't hold an anonymous author accountable for fraud.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, http://morewhat.com/wordpress/?p=1107, Big Dog's Weblog, basil's blog, A Few Shiny Pebbles, Stuck On Stupid, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, Right Celebrity, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Overtaken by Events, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.