CNN Covers Wikipedia validity concerns
 

CNN Covers Wikipedia validity concerns:
http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/cl....interview.cnn

This is a similar issue that we will be facing once the Wiki is put online in the coming week(s) (I am still testing)

One thing that I don't agree to whats said, is GOVERNMENT CONTROL... that that dude talks about... completely bullshit. the last thing the web needs is the gov to help...

I am a gov employee and I see daily how ****ed the gov is, its incapable of running the country let alone telling people whats true and whats not...

Re: CNN Covers Wikipedia validity concerns
 

i've personally and beefs with some due to papers and arguments being based on stuff written on Wiki... and obviously flawed.
people seem to forget thats a FFA and anybody can write crap, and some idiot can rewrite it and so forth. one big loop of misinformation.
needs to be read with a pinch of salt.
editors needed?

Re: CNN Covers Wikipedia validity concerns
 

I don't think he was advocating government control, he's worried about a backlash of regulations that might restrict freedom of speech should certain politician s feel attacked.
The people that deliberately misinform via Wiki or any form of media (websites being the easiest, most available, cheapest, and most anonymous (a good and bad thing)for most people) are among the lowest form of life along with spammers, scammers, and virus writers.
If their argument is so weak, that they can only convincee others by lying, then the premise is false.
However, it is extremely effective to smear someone (look at Kerry vs Swiftwater veterans (many of whom later retracted/changed their quoted statements))
Even traditional media sometimes abuse their powers, and the biggest retraction never carries the weight of the original "caught red-handed" headline.
Editors can be good or can add their own spin.

Re: CNN Covers Wikipedia validity concerns
 

I can't view that video but I distinctly remember a study that said that on average, wikipedia is more accurate than the encyclopedia britannica.

Re: CNN Covers Wikipedia validity concerns
 

I believe the wiki ppl said that, so it may or may not be true. The difference is that someone will get shouted at an a retraction will get printed in the encyclopedia britanncia while on wiki you never know.

Put it this way if you can find a person who would take an average wiki artical over encyclopedia brittanica then youve found a member of the wiki development team.

Re: CNN Covers Wikipedia validity concerns
 

Take one person who only looks at one source and you've found a bad researcher :).