news.yahoo.com — Following revelations that a high-ranking member of Wikipedia's bureaucracy used his cloak of anonymity to lie about being a professor of religion, the free Internet encyclopedia plans to ask contributors who claim such credentials to identify themselves.
Mar 7, 2007 View in Crawl 4
zekesulastinMar 8, 2007
@ InspSherlock:There are plenty of other websites you can put your conspiracy theories on without contaminating Wikipedia with them ...
vampyr3knightMar 8, 2007
"Wikipedia is single most important database running on earth today"LMAO, are you f**king serious? This is beyond debate now, your just taking the piss lol. I would go on and explain how useless your defence of Wikipedia is but randf put it pretty well :)
llaunjeMar 8, 2007
I usually use wikipedia as a starting point, say, when I'm a total loss on a topic.Usually, I'm not looking for scientific facts though_ more like opinions, perspective, pros-and-cons, and when it comes to that, it's suitable enough.In the end, there's not single text that can be 100% objective, if only because the one who wrote it is a human being. The only way to get to what we want to know, is exercise our personal intelligence, each in his own measure and way.
tawkerMar 8, 2007
There isn't any policy, the story is inaccurate.
gabrielsMar 8, 2007
Wait, there's evidence against Global Warming?Holy s**t!
sonicadMar 8, 2007
I actually used to speak with EssJay quite often, and, despite what he did here, he always seemed to me to be a nice guy. Perhaps misguided in what he did, seeing this now, but I don't think it should be taken as a statement on him as a person.
mt066Mar 8, 2007
He's not gonna say "I'm right because I'm Phil Zimmerman." He's going to say "I have two PhD's in field X and you references are wrong because of [ramblings using complex jargon]." If you're not an expert in the field, you would have to trust experts to know what they are saying because you lack the knowledge to decide yourself. So when someone throws fake credentials around, they are using them as leverage to violate your trust. Someone could come along with perfect evidence as a refutation, but how would you know? You got your knowledge from the "expert."
triple110Mar 8, 2007
I think this Wikipedia credibility debate has some very interesting social significance. The idea that Wikipedia is "less" credible than another resource of information is a falsehood to serve institutional and individual speculation of "truth" vs. "fact". I personally feel that restricting information resources by universities, colleges and schools only confines communities/students to "single thought" ideals where educators enact "if you don't think like me, you are wrong" mentalities. I dislike the idea that I need someone else's work, observations or conclusions to "prove" that I my own conclusions are correct. If I am to "prove" my theories or conclusions I have to be willing, if contested, to do my own research/science that is "blind" to my theories/conclusions or risk "tainting" the facts or science that may prove or disprove my point.Personally I think that lying about credentials is disingenuous, but, many people feel that if there are not "letters" or degrees associated in a persons pursuit of knowledge or "truth", then they have no credibility or "right" to state conclusions about a subject. The greater questions should be asked of the conclusions or statements, like, can they proved outside the individuals own research?. If we have to "know someone" to have knowledge, then we will only cripple our knowledge development and in turn, bring societal growth to screeching halt.But that's just my opinion and I have no credentials to prove it correct./soapbox