The Economist once described the Wikipedia as 'the force for good'. Of course, where there is good, there must be evil - spawned from greed, malice or simple lack of understanding. See the dark forces gathering here. Even if this article is right and Wiki is safe, the court proceedings will still cost money - money which comes from our donations and should be used on improving the encyclopedia, not feeding the lawyers :(
Update: ZDNet has a good article on this.
See also Wikipedia take on this.
Update2: Wikipedia defends itself with transparency, Register vs Wiki
Kontes Ilustrasi Bahan Ajar: Creating Openly Licensed Assets for Educators
-
(Screenshot of the landing page https://adicita.gimpscape.or.id/) From
October to November 2024, Creative Commons Indonesia and Gimpscape ID (Open
Source C...
1 day ago
6 comments:
Feeding Wikipedia with misinformation. That's new.
How does one validate information on a subject that is extremely obscure or simply doesn't have enough sources to check with?
Everything can be validated, the question is - how much time (and sometimes - money) are you prepared to spend on doing this?
Assume you have something that is nigh impossible to acutally confirm. How does Wikipedia treat that kind of information?
Also, is it better to have incomplete or misleading information than none at all?
MtG, I replied above. Everything should be verifiable. If it cannot be vefired, it may assumed to be false (fiction) and deleted.
Incomplete - yes. Misleading - no.
I still see a 'may' in your answer. Who decides whether to delete or not? And how?
I meant 'misleading' as in 'lacking an importnant bit of information that changes the whole meaning'.
Martin, check Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
Post a Comment