It's an interesting question. The recent spat caused by Dave Winer and Adam Curry's historical contribution to podcasting has raised debate about how easy it is to edit a wiki article and thus revise history! ZDNet has asked of Wikipedia is 'a threat or a menace' whilst USA Today has been stronger by claiming that Wikipedia articles are 'flawed and irresponsible' when it comes to serious research. Wikipedia themselves have responded to the Winer/Curry trouble by putting a halt to anonymous creation of pages and restricting the way content is added or updated. I think that any way we can continue to see Wikipedia grow and develop with the greatest amount of transparency, the better - we should be able to all immediately see who has made what changes to any information submitted to any Wiki - in the interests of reliability and confidence in the data we are reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment