tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11534721.post114925583087031060..comments2023-10-11T10:06:53.426-04:00Comments on Dan Ward's Blog: Interactive AccessDanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672193314217176187noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11534721.post-1151326234972375592006-06-26T08:50:00.000-04:002006-06-26T08:50:00.000-04:00Great comments! It's been pointed out (often) that...Great comments! It's been pointed out (often) that Wikipedia is a bit like a public restroom - you don't know who was there last...<BR/><BR/>The tricky thing, though, is that even the Experts get it wrong sometimes. All too often we assume they are 100% correct, which is as dangerous an assumption to make about Experts as it is to make about the Wiki amateurs. <BR/><BR/>So I agree that it's Caveat Emptor when dealing with Wikipedia... but the same applies to any source of information.<BR/><BR/>The journal Nature recently ran an article showing that Wikipedia's quality (correctness, etc) was equivalent to that of Encyclopedia Brittanica.<BR/><BR/>The really powerful thing, to my mind, is that when Wikipedia gets it wrong, anyone can correct it (& quickly). When Britannica gets it wrong... how does it get fixed?Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672193314217176187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11534721.post-1149550151731121102006-06-05T19:29:00.000-04:002006-06-05T19:29:00.000-04:00It's easy to be seduced by the ease with which you...It's easy to be seduced by the ease with which you can find fascinating information about anything you're interested in and a huge amount you didn't know you were interested in. <BR/><BR/>But here are the problems for me: How much of this information can be relied on; and where is it being disseminated? <BR/><BR/>Wikis are, indeed, cool. But (big BUT) my concern with wikis is that when anyone can post and amend information, we have no way of knowing how much of it is actually valid. I've taught college and it's frightening to me that students happily accept anything that is on the Internet as gospel truth. I'm going to sound like an intellectual snob here, but so be it: I don't suppose scholars of the caliber of Stephen Hawking spend time updating <I>Wikipedia</I>.<BR/><BR/>Eskimos have 200 words for snow, right? Wrong. That's linguistic urban legend, and it became entrenched common belief way before the Internet and <I>Wikipedia</I>. So think how much faster misinformation can spread now.<BR/><BR/>I agree that all this is cool and exciting. But its other potential scares me.Passantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09948665813889579576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11534721.post-1149387299685302002006-06-03T22:14:00.000-04:002006-06-03T22:14:00.000-04:00I agree... its not the data itself that is useful,...I agree... its not the data itself that is useful, its all about what you can do with it. Sorta like sitting on top of an oil field before gasoline combustion engines. The Information Age will quickly be eclipsed by the Interactive Age.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13323501105709720347noreply@blogger.com