well, i only half agree there. the analogy between wikipedia and blogs isn’t a 1=1 equation. the huge difference is that wikipedia aims to be treated as a reliable source of information, suitable for research, while blogs are more on the op-ed side of things. As a teacher I’ve never seen anyone try to use a blog as a source, but I have seen wikipedia. And out of the four or so cases there has been at least one piece of bad info. I think my brother put it best– when I told him about wikipedia he looked at it and searched “ninjas.” The first part of the entry is basically one long set of contradictions to which he responded, “I’ve never been so confused about ninjas in all my life.” My point is that right now I would not let a student use wikipedia for anything more than background info (which must be cross-referenced). maybe one day wikipedia will be something folks can go to, but right now it is dangerous to treat things as fact when there status largely unverified. wikipedia is a house built on built on sand, maybe the sand will settle and it will become strong, but it also might get swept into the sea. While the idea that other sources can also be wrong is compelling, I think that speaks more to the need for those sources to increase editorial supervision. It certainly shouldn’t be used to excuse someone else’s bad information.

Excellent comments on the Wikipedia flap.

[...] Several recent cases have highlighted the potential problems. One article was revealed as falsely suggesting that a former assistant to US Senator Robert Kennedy may have been involved in his assassination. And podcasting pioneer Adam Curry has been accused of editing the entry on podcasting to remove references to competitors’ work. Curry says he merely thought he was making the entry more accurate. [...]

[...] The argument about Wikipedia versus Britannica continues to rage in libraryland. The questions are about authority and the likelihood of outright deception, of course, and a recent round brought up the limitations of peer review as exemplified in the 1989 cold fusion controversy, where two scientists claimed to have achieved a nuclear fusion reaction at room temperature. Randy Souther, from the University of San Francisco, asked us to look more carefully: FYI, cold fusion in 1989 was a media fiasco, but not a fraud. The research is still controversial, but continues today with publications in more than 50 peer-reviewed journals. But you would never realize this by reading Britannica’s one-paragraph article, which is stuck in 1989; Wikipedia’s gives a reasonable overview, and is up-to-date. [...]

[...] surely not the only one who smiles kindly and feels bad for those who look for some authority to “fix” Wikipedia, but take a look at the arguments about what is or is not offensive in Flickr and we find it: [...]

Up to 9 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more, for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison with our own at that time - using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is documented by themselves.
Thereafter we even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, ‘Jimbo’s second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is ultimately at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.

For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails will be part of our next web newsletter ‘Scientific Discovery’. It will be on-line by the end of July 2007. Overall, it is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with ‘Jimbo’ and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to ‘Jimbo’s’ opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball home and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time - the web link is http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk.

Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity (reg. no. CH-035.7.035.277-9 - 11th July 2005)
Bern, Switzerland

Hey- I’ve only used Wiki twice seriously.

Once was a completely factual error about one of our programs at the university (not malicious, but be omitting a certain important detail, they totally changed the nature of the program). Spent a half hour tracking this down on the internet myself- even though I’ve worked there for 30+ years and know I am correct. I still I still checked it out, mainly because I was apprehensive that someone in the university had provided the incorrect information.

Other time was while quiickly selecting the bios of three people (who are public figures, not “celebrities,” and the tone of the entries was blatantly biased.

So, should you do an update on your book, let me know.