Via Instapundit comes this series of Volokh Conspiracy guest-posts on the topic of Wikipedia by an administrator of Wikipedia – an electronic entity that many if not most of the readers of this site don’t particularly trust*. The author (one Newyorkbrad) knows this himself, which is why he has been providing TVC with basic explanations of the internal self-monitoring system, what the various levels of access are, and some of the philosophical disputes going on inside the site. Essentially, he’s trying to demystify the whole thing for people.
If I had been asked for advice on this topic – which I wasn’t – I would have to say that the best way for people to handle perceived flaws in Wikipedia would be roughly similar to what I counseled people to do with the GOP; join up, make yourself useful, then start providing balance to the discussion. They’ll probably be overjoyed to see you and you can finally set the record straight on 18th Century coal mining techniques.
Moe Lane
*This statement is equally accurate for RedState.com & MoeLane.com.
Crossposted to Moe Lane.
Steve Maley
Moe Lane
Dan McLaughlin
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
How about the "Progressive movement"
Karina (Diary) Sunday, May 17th at 10:40AM EST (link)listing? That makes for really interesting, amusing reading. Talk about twisted.
I Think Wiki's Science Stuff Is Generally OK...
IJB Sunday, May 17th at 10:41AM EST (link)…But I wouldn’t trust them on much else.
But that’s just the nature of the beast – Lefties have more free time, are more fervent, and will always make sure that “their truth” carries the day.
That’s why, on political/historical stuff, I’m sympathetic to the people who are setting up conservative alternatives.
Actually, the science stuff, in subjects that I know a lot about, is pretty mixed.
larueladue (Diary) Monday, May 18th at 1:41PM EST (link)Some is good, some is misleading (not intentional, I am sure), and very little is flat wrong. It seems to be just what it is: a lot of articles written by some that know what they are talking about, and a lot of articles by some that think they know what they are talking about.
You just have to use it for a starting point (since it comes up high in the google page) and alway utilize the associated links, and always follow other links, to make sure they article at least seems to represent the main consensus…