| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The FUD-based EncyclopediaThe FUD-based EncyclopediaPosted Mar 4, 2005 4:19 UTC (Fri) by jabby (subscriber, #2648)Parent article: The FUD-based Encyclopedia
I am honestly disappointed with both articles. When I first read McHenry's article, I was somewhat convinced by his Alexander Hamilton example, but I was uncomfortable with the thin evidence for his conclusions. After reading the Krowne response and Mr. McHenry's letter here, I can only shake my head.
To me, both articles were tinged with not a little emotional fervor. I think both commentators are threatened by the model represented by the other. What this discussion could use is some good, objective research. Mr. Krowne is upset that Mr. McHenry only references one article (though it was very well chosen and effective as a demonstration). So, someone ought to conduct a review of 100 articles, distributed over many topics and genres (biography, geography, ancient history, recent history, etc.). And then do a review of the corresponding articles in traditional encyclopedias.
I think both of them make good points, though. The Alexander Hamilton's birthdate example does clearly demonstrate a weakness of the open development model. However, by pointing it out, Mr. McHenry has actually just aided Wikipedia by providing more common information that can be added to the article. In fact, the Wikipedia entry has been updated with this information. It should now be clear to anyone updating the entry that the birthdate is in question and that the best known dates are already included. So, McHenry just proved in some sense that the open collaboration model does in fact work!
(Log in to post comments)
The FUD-based Encyclopedia Posted Mar 4, 2005 14:44 UTC (Fri) by imres (guest, #12) [Link] I agree only partially with your take.
Krowne's article has a great merit, in my view. Mixed with the FUD anti-FUD talk there is an attempt to explain the phenomenon underlying why Wikipedia works and produces content of good quality? And the first step in this direction is Yochai Benkler's seminal paper "Coase's Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm" http://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.html . Krowne even proposes some interesting extensions to Benkler's theory.
The point is that there is a *lot* of explaining to be done. One of the best places I know of where this explaining is being slowly undertaken is the Many2Many website http://www.corante.com/many/ where a number of columnists including Clay Shirky, Ross Mayfield, Danah Boyd and others are regularly posting some quite ineresting observations and hypothesis.
The FUD-based Encyclopedia Posted Mar 8, 2005 0:34 UTC (Tue) by illtyd (guest, #2124) [Link] Its one thing to explain how something works. Its another to demonstrate that it does. Does it? The one article referred to by McHenry was corrected. As an earlier comment noted, no-one has done a review of a representative sample of entries and assessed how they have done independently of such a review of the articles, which Krowne claims is unnecessary
|
|
||||||||||||