I think their "business model" is the open source community, except to
be a part of that you must actually know something about programming and
writing computer code. So it works for them.
joe salerno
Tom Fine wrote:
> One man's opinion ...
>
> They have a very long way to go. As long as they insist on this
> "democratic" mode of operation where any crackpot can hit the edit
> button, and in typical dot-bomb fashion they don't have a viable
> business model to pay a staff of experts to vet information before it's
> published, they will have little credibility with serious students or
> experts of any topic. The web-world often confuses "democracy" with mob
> rule. The simple fact is that in-depth knowledge is something gained
> through hard work and an expert is different from a wingnut with a bunch
> of opinions, and both shouldn't have equal power to publish into what
> pretends to be a fact-based "encyclopedia."
>
> Now, that said, here's my wingnut opinion for the day -- expertise can
> also be an echo-chamber that is just a well-vetted myth-amplifier, so we
> all need to be careful to keep the windows open and the air fresh.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard L. Hess"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 10:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?
>
>
>> At 11:22 PM 2008-10-15, Steven C. Barr wrote:
>>> --Thus, it seems, Wikipedia doesn't want anything which can be
>>> demonstrably
>>> PROVEN to be accurate...which might explain its less-than-impressive
>>> repuation for truth and accuracy...?!
>>
>> Steven,
>>
>> Did you study the link
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
>> ???
>>
>> There you will find what I wrote about in a previous post. They are
>> TRYING to set rules for good reasons. Whether it always works or not
>> is the discussion, but the basis of using only secondary sources that
>> have already been vetted as a way to keep un-vetted original thinking
>> out of their general reference work.
>>
>> If nothing else, I'm finding Wikipedia a good place to find better
>> sources--especially as more and more articles grow footnote references
>> as the founders hoped.
>>
>> Their approach is increasing the likelihood that the references used
>> to craft articles have been peer reviewed. Their point is similar to
>> Tom's about triangulation, just quoting original data without
>> interpretation can get really confusing and can lead to misleading
>> conclusions. Their assumption is if the secondary source makes the
>> interpretation and it has been published then it is likely to be
>> somewhat mainstream.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada (905) 713 6733 1-877-TAPE-FIX
>> Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
>
|