Enterprise applications Toolkit

Story: Wikipedia: fitting the open source framework

• 
• 

Nobody was more surprised that the New York Times' fact checkers were using Wikipedia than the regular Wikipedia contributors, as the Times is one of the sources regularly referenced in articles. I don't know how many ways Wikipedia can state that it is not authoritative and that researchers should not use it as a single confirming source (though any researcher who does that with any source doesn't deserve the name). There are disclaimers on every page, giant text on the front page stating "Anyone can edit" and an extensive account of identified limitations of the wiki written by Wikipedians themselves for anyone who wants to look. The people who beat up Wikipedia because it doesn't fit their own mistaken preconceptions are just getting tiresome at this point. Is this really the first time that they realized that everything on the web is not 100% correct?

Addressing the article, the way one becomes a "known entity" on Wikipedia is by creating an account and regularly editing, so I'm not sure how one becomes "known" while not previously being "unknown". It should also be noted that most editors have regular topics that they edit, so the subcommunities are actually much smaller than implied in the article. Someone who regular edits articles on the politics of South Pacific islands or Latvian pop music, for example, will quickly come to know, and be known by, all the other regular contributors in that subject. Familiarity and trust do play a large role in Wikipedia, even with the ability of anonymous editors to contribute.

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

Full Talkback thread