Charles Matthews wrote: > Delirium wrote: > >> As far as I understand, the main stumbling blocks have been that nobody >> can agree on who should make the database, what the process will be for >> verifying information, what access policies should be like, who would be >> responsible if there were errors in it, what constitutes evidence worth >> including, etc., etc. Seems doctors are voting with their feet and >> deciding that Wikipedia's attempt at tackling all those is at least >> better than nothing. >> >> >> > This (medical info) case is certainly an interesting instance of WP > "undercutting" what people would generally agree was a well-founded > desire to have authoritative information. I agree the desire for authoritative information is well-founded, but you can go too far and have paralysis: since nobody's yet agreed on what the most perfect, most authoritative source of information would be, we shouldn't have one at all? Surely building *something* is better, which is basically what Wikipedia has done, with tentative and in-progress answers to all those tricky questions of authority and process. Maybe a medical organization can build something better than Wikipedia for their field, with more authoritative information and a better process. But they haven't, despite a decades-long headstart on us in the planning department. Rather than undercutting, maybe we'll actually stimulate a renewed sense of urgency to produce an alternative?
-Mark _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
