Re: this is where I came in....
- From: jeev@xxxxxxxxx (Ellen Evans)
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:54:08 +0000 (UTC)
In article <441f5419.1637635375@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Michael Palmer <mpalmer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[]
I've posted before about privacy concerns. Yes, I know David is a
composer who writes for public performance, but it's his music that's
public, not his personal life, and I believe that David should have
some say as to whether his private life is splashed across the
monitors of the world in the form of a Wikipedia entry.
He wouldn't have some say were his thumbnail bio included in a book about
contemporary composers. And he has a web site, and posts in a very public
forum - here - quite regularly. So while I believe there can be privacy
issues re: Wikipedia, I don't think they are different *in kind* than all
sorts of other data sources.
Even if, as I
suspect from reading his posts here, David isn't opposed to having a
Wikipedia entry, there's the question of the lack of responsibility
for the information that appears in Wikipedia articles. Few Wikipedia
articles give sources, and even fewer indicate the name(s) of the
contributor(s), so there's usually no way to tell how accurate,
complete, or unbiased the information is.
And yet, in a head to head comparison with two or more actual
encyclopedias, it recently did fairly well. Not perfectly, of course, but
junk gets in everywhere.
This is of special concern
(at least to moi, who has to sit reference in a library), since the
majority of Wikipedia users, seing the term "encyclopedia", will
assume there's some sort of consistent intellectual control, as there
is in the EB and other "published" encyclopedias.
I dunno. I had a less than stellar encounter with EB once, actually.
Someone I know was contacted by EB to write an entry on a subject on which
he is, in fact, one of the most authoritative experts in the world. He
obliged. After their "copy-edited" version came back, it sounded as if it
had been run through a pablum making machine, with much of the
information, and essentially all of the linguistic esprit - for which the
author is noted - removed, replaced by something that can easily be
described as "blah, blah, blah <insert key word here> blah" When my
friend expressed his concerns, he was told he had no recourse. Largely
because he loved the 1911 edition, he decided to allow them to carry on,
but it left a bitter taste in his mouth. And made me more than a bit wary
of what I see there.
And while I realize
that the theory behind Wikipedia is that instant, easy, electronic
collaboration will improve the quality of information, the lack of
consistent intellectual control tends to have the opposite effect,
casting suspicion on the quality of every entry, even one that is
first-rate.
Well, that's the gamble of the form. So far, despite a fair number of
publicized cases of mis-use, it's don't rather remarkably well for a
source of first, but most certainly not last, resort. It will be
interesting to watch as it develops.
--
Ellen Evans If my life wasn't funny, it would
jeev@xxxxxxxxx just be true, and that's unacceptable.
Carrie Fisher
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: this is where I came in....
- From: David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
- Re: this is where I came in....
- From: David W. Fenton
- Re: this is where I came in....
- References:
- this is where I came in....
- From: Charlie Fulton
- Re: this is where I came in....
- From: Michael Palmer
- Re: this is where I came in....
- From: Ellen Evans
- Re: this is where I came in....
- From: Michael Palmer
- this is where I came in....
- Prev by Date: Re: tosto
- Next by Date: Re: KGRlZnVu
- Previous by thread: Re: this is where I came in....
- Next by thread: Re: this is where I came in....
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
