Bias against proprietary, commercial, patenting interests is just as valid... keeping in mind that much in science is ever more focussing on commercial development of technologies (which today reads as: "for ones individual profit"), rather than doing unbiased research.
Unlike most "trusted", "peer-reviewed" sources, wikipedia allows for PUBLIC revision and revision history, even linked to user profiles. I consider this the number one reason for why it has become and is becoming a source that is just as trustable as any "publication" that comes along with an ISBN number, which - on average - is quite likely driven by special interests to a much larger degree ...rather than being the outcome of - on average - balanced and moderated editing processes ...and discussions or arguments that go along with them. Would I use wikipedia for scientific publications today? Surely not. But that is more due to its still quite limited content on one hand and (therefore) a lack of acceptance in the "scientific" establishment on the other ...rather than the model on which Wikipedia is built. In that respect... I, for one, demand for scientific research and results to be public and open ...otherwise they're to be rejected, as their main focus clearly is not on scientific progress, which - above all - embraces the ability to deal with scepticism, rebuttal and revision in a appropriate ways... which todays "peer review" process does not seem to provide for in acceptable ways. However, what I find to be fundamentally missing in Wikipedia (or its interrelation to the rest of "the web") is a demand for accessibility to the kind of independent "(arte)facts" or "samples of experience" on which the whole body of knowledge is built... e.g. all sorts of data samples. Wikipedia too much constructs around results considered trustworthy, merely due to them being published... while not - or at best insufficiently - providing access to the data and methods from which those results were derived. Tobias. On Jan 5, 12:33 pm, Alex Hough <[email protected]> wrote: > bias against wikipedia is valid. Constructed hypertexts are not citable - a > good rule. > > Alex -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.
