There’s been a lot of noise in the Blogosphere about Wikipedia, like this article at Techdirt. Wikipedia, in case you missed it, is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by ordinary people.
Some small town journalist seems to
write off Wikipedia based solely on how it was created and maintained, and not at all on the actual content.
It seems that the problem is really that it was compiled by a bunch of well-informed amateurs, rather than a professional like Al Fasoldt, the journalist in question. Of course, HIS source was an impeccably informed librarian
Along with my post, I sent an email to the writer, Al Fasoldt, giving him some additional information about Wikipedia, and wondering why, after telling us how you can’t trust any random info online, he trusted the email from a random librarian claiming Wikipedia was somehow untrustworthy. The ongoing discussion with Mr. Fasoldt has been quite a lesson in watching how a journalist (a) continues to make unsubstantiated allegations (b) seems to prefer insulting me and putting words in my mouth to actually responding to my points or questions and (c) sticks steadfastly to his belief that only “experts” can be trusted with information — and, in his case, only experts that he chooses. Yet, somehow, we’re supposed to find him more trustworthy than a self-correcting community.
Seems like the pros are running scared to me. If everyone starts to become a journalist, what future is there for journeymen like Mr Fasoldt?
Ironically, Mr Fasoldt’s ignorant ravings have garnered far more favourable publicity (like this) for the excellent and visionary Wikipedia than if he’d quietly ignored its existence in the first place.
—–>Follow us on Twitter too: @russellbuckley and @caaarlo
Recent Comments