Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Piling On

Another piece on whether Wikipedia can be trusted, this one from the Guardian.

1 Comments:

Blogger Paul Duguid said...

The Guardian story brings out one key problem with d-i-y encyclopaedias. If we could assume that the Defoe example was an aberration that I was lucky enouch to land on, we can say that in general, it shouldn't be too hard to get the facts right about a figure. It takes a lot of to understand and assess a body of work. Correcting the date of birth and day of death was (interventions aside) relatively trivial, summing up Defoe's 4-500 published writings, Steve Reich's compositions, T.S. Eliot's poems, or Pepys diary is a real challenge. Consequently, it is not surprising that, as some of the Guardian's critics note, the Wikipedia entries are factual, not analytical and focus on the details of the life, but not the work. Facts can be an easy "open source" endeavour, plugged in piece by piece; analysis is not.

11:11 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home