tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621024.post113371776276438292..comments2024-01-09T03:52:43.027-08:00Comments on The Abstract Factory: On Wikipedia and trustKeunwoo Lee (Cog)http://www.blogger.com/profile/05577836853536292311noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621024.post-1135151108678977352005-12-20T23:45:00.000-08:002005-12-20T23:45:00.000-08:00...and if you had bothered to read the linked arti......and if you had bothered to read the linked articles, you'd see that the reason Seigenthaler's family enters into it is that the target of the prank was a co-worker of the prankster <I>and a friend of the Seigenthaler family</I>. It's not hard to read between the lines here.<BR/><BR/>Seigenthaler's insinuating that free collaborative information sources need to be reined in by lawsuits, all because he got his hair mussed by some random joker on the Internet ---- and this even though the errors on Wikipedia were fixed with extraordinary rapidity as soon as they were brought to the editors' attention. He's a threat because he's influential enough to get taken seriously by policymakers.<BR/><BR/>Re: Wikipedia's being a consequence-free environment, all I have to say is that I find it ironic that you're posting anonymously. Note that <I>I</I> have no problem with your posting anonymously, but intellectual consistency requires that <I>you</I> divulge sufficient information so that you can be sued in case you commit libel in this space. Or else you could admit that there is a social value in permitting people to post things on the Internet without that overhead.<BR/><BR/>Finally, Wikipedia does have value and authority, in much the same way that newspapers, print encyclopedias, and peer-reviewed scientific articles have value and authority, while being imperfect. Unless you can quantitatively show that Wikipedia's net value to society is negative, then pointing to individual instances of damage done by Wikipedia doesn't constitute a remotely convincing argument against it. By that standard, the New York Times should be disbanded because of Judith Miller's reporting on WMD. Maybe you believe this, but if so then you should say so.Keunwoo Lee (Cog)https://www.blogger.com/profile/05577836853536292311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621024.post-1135113998787166152005-12-20T13:26:00.000-08:002005-12-20T13:26:00.000-08:00It looks as though *my* fact checking could use a ...It looks as though *my* fact checking could use a little work too. I confused Daniel Brandt, the guy who discovered the author of the controversial Seigenthaler article, with Brian Chase, who was the author of the article. How embarrassing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621024.post-1135107878813480222005-12-20T11:44:00.000-08:002005-12-20T11:44:00.000-08:00"...The right question here is: are we better off ..."...The right question here is: are we better off because this resource exists? ... And for Wikipedia, the answer's undoubtedly yes, at least for me."<BR/><BR/>That's nice. But for Seigenthaler, and anyone else slandered on Wikipedia it's undoubtedly "no". However, since *you* are better off, screw Seigenthaler, right?<BR/><BR/>"...my answer to Wikipedia critics is: if Wikipedia's net value to you is negative, then don't use it."<BR/><BR/>That's a reasonable argument when applied to things that only affect one person. For example, if the net value to you of jacking off is negative then by all means, refrain. When applied to something that affects a huge number of people, some directly, it becomes a ridiculous argument. How is "not using it" going to help someone whose reputation has been damaged?<BR/><BR/>"...let's remember that Seigenthaler hardly needs our pity or assistance here ... he's a heavy player in media circles."<BR/><BR/>Big deal. He's "heavy" so the norms of courtesy and responsibily don't apply when publishing information about him? Since when does "heavyness" excuse publishing hurtful lies about someone?<BR/><BR/>"He's heavy enough that the Wikipedia prankster was forced to resign from his (non-journalism) job, presumably because the prankee was a friend of Seigenthaler family and wanted to remain in their good graces."<BR/><BR/>Are you under the impression that the word "presumably" somehow turns wild speculation into fact? Brandt may have resigned for the reason you invented, or some other reason. The simplest explanation is that Brandt's employer asked him to resign because Brandt did something irresponsible and immoral. We have no direct knowledge of what happened, nonetheless you're comfortable "presuming" that Brandt's employer was intimidated by "Don Seigenthaler's" family. How on Earth did his *family* find its way into your argument anyway?<BR/><BR/>"The truth is, people like Seigenthaler are a much greater threat to a free society than Wikipedia or its vandals."<BR/><BR/>Nice one. Seigenthaler has the nerve to say Wikipedia should fix its history and biography pages and now, somehow that makes him a "threat to a free society".<BR/><BR/>The only reason Wikipedia is able to continue is that it exists in a consequence-free environment. If Wikipedia published a print edition using their current standards of fact-checking they'd be sued into oblivion. You can't simultaneously have value and authority (which Wikipedia pretentiously claims to have), and zero responsibility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com