Referencing: Who Do You Trust, The Wiki Or The Reporter?
The above link leads to an interesting TechDirt article where a traditional reporter complains about the inherent inaccuracy of information sources such as Wikipedia etc. The reporter's claim boils down to simply that you can't trust the rabble, and you need experts (reporters, one presumes) to present facts.
Well, OK. It's true that sometimes you can't trust a mob. When a subject becomes emotionally charged (for example the SCO Lawsuit), it's quite possible for mob-rule sources to be distorted by emotions and make it impossible for a balanced view to be presented.
But that's also true of reporters and "experts". Back before the Wright brothers, you could find plenty of scientific "experts" who could explain why mechanical flight was impossible.
So really, the same arguments about prejudice and inaccuracy apply everywhere. You can't implicitly trust Wikipedia or the New York Times. The librarian quoted in the original article (link dead, sorry) says "part of my job is to help my students develop critical thinking skills"; those are just as necessary with any source, no matter what its reputation is.
However, bulletin boards, newsgroups, and Wikis at least offer the potential for other views to creep in. You get to read other points of view, unsanitized by corporate policy. Yes, that can let a lot of junk in also, but if you are thinking logically, the junk should fall out rather easily. Personally, I'd rather read multiple points of view and decide for myself.
Got something to add? Send me email.
More Articles by Tony Lawrence © 2011-07-02 Tony Lawrence