The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 245: | Line 245: | ||
:::::Yes, I think that is fair enough. Regarding use of psuedonyms - I think that the new online culture that this has fostered has some fascinating results and benefits, but it is basically a grand experiment and will not cut it for "normal mainstream activity" in the near future. I would guess about 90% of the population will only really trust something where they know and can check up on the source. The most common response I get about wikis are "so anyone can edit it - it must be crap or at least have lots of issues and errors". Reality is shaped by beliefs. These may change over time, but I personally think that sources (and authors) should be attributed. This doesn't mean that quality will improve, but at least you know who you are referencing (or assessing their contributions) - and if they are off beam or not. Interesting how Wikipedia is now very strict about "authorative sources" being essential, but does not really police someone pushing POV by aggreggating several "authorative sources" that support their POV. If you knew the author was a political staffer or a zealot this could be more easily ascertained, and they may be less inclined to push their line. Jimbo stated this was a known issue when we met. [[User:Peter Campbell|Peter Campbell]] 03:20, 1 May 2007 (PDT) | :::::Yes, I think that is fair enough. Regarding use of psuedonyms - I think that the new online culture that this has fostered has some fascinating results and benefits, but it is basically a grand experiment and will not cut it for "normal mainstream activity" in the near future. I would guess about 90% of the population will only really trust something where they know and can check up on the source. The most common response I get about wikis are "so anyone can edit it - it must be crap or at least have lots of issues and errors". Reality is shaped by beliefs. These may change over time, but I personally think that sources (and authors) should be attributed. This doesn't mean that quality will improve, but at least you know who you are referencing (or assessing their contributions) - and if they are off beam or not. Interesting how Wikipedia is now very strict about "authorative sources" being essential, but does not really police someone pushing POV by aggreggating several "authorative sources" that support their POV. If you knew the author was a political staffer or a zealot this could be more easily ascertained, and they may be less inclined to push their line. Jimbo stated this was a known issue when we met. [[User:Peter Campbell|Peter Campbell]] 03:20, 1 May 2007 (PDT) | ||
==Rethinking categories== | ==Rethinking categories== |