All, I tend to agree with Tobias, in the following sense.
Content in Wikipedia represents a valid discourse, whether or not it is always "accurate". As long as the scholar makes appropriate attribution, the reader can always "consider the source." The reality is, no source is unimpeachable and free of point of view. To espouse any kind of knowledge also claims membership in a thought-community, with its attendant biases and viewpoints. Now, if a given thought community -- by it's own internal norms -- decides that Wikipedia, or another source, is unacceptable, that is their prerogative, I suppose. But there are certainly fields of study within which Wikipedia, is an acceptable source. So, for example, might be the posts of participants in a listserv like this one, as examples of popular discourse on the use of wikis. It's all in the point of view. Regards, Neil Neil Olonoff [email protected] Lead, Federal Knowledge Management Initiative, Federal KM Working Group hosted at http://KM.gov Office: 703.614.5058 (US Army HQDA, G-4/Contracted by Innolog) Mobile: 703.283.4157 (Disabled during working hours) Personal profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/olonoff Blogging at http://FedKM.org On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Tobias Beer <[email protected]>wrote: > 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]<tiddlywiki%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en. > > > -- 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.
