On Jan 8, 6:44=A0pm, "Michael J. Mahon"  wrote:

> > Actually, I'm going to just give up. If real facts aren't of interest
> > to them, why should I fight it? I have better things to do.
>
> My feeling exactly.
>
> If citations are the only guide, then a frequently repeated lie trumps
> a seldom repeated truth.
>
> I have very little faith in the "wiki" principle, whether it is
> controlled by unseen editors or by a mob.

When I read this, I was reminded that I once had a crisis of faith. I
resolved it when I realised the paradox; my crisis was due to my faith
in the concept of faith itself :-)

> If it is to make any sense at all, it must be based on the
"credentials"
> of each contributor. =A0It is evident that everything is not known equall=
y
> by everyone.

In a Wiki setting, there's no way to verify the veracity of someones
"credentials", and thus no way to bestow authority. But in a way,
that's the point of it; the tendency of societies to propagate
incorrect information even in the face of the truth isn't a wiki
phenomena, and unfortunately those with "credentials" are often a part
of the same mob that propagates the fallacies.

> As a person of some knowledge and good intentions, and an obsessive-
> compulsive "proofreader", I frequently see things in wikis which are
> incorrect either in form or in essence (and I am referring to errors
> of fact, not opinion). =A0I am willing to take the time to edit and
> proof my corrections, and would welcome someone knowledgeable reviewing
> them and even contacting me if questions arose, but I am not willing
> to take the time to fix things if they are often simply blindly restored
> to their error state.

That is of course what happens. But what happens when another
individual comes along, notices the error, and corroborates your
correction? Over time, the number of individuals purveying the truth
outweighs the number purveying the myth. Alas, dialectic only trumps
rhetoric when it occurs...

> I can only assume then, that for all practical purposes, wiki updating
> is left to that tiny minority who are willing to research every point
> (ha!) and cite references.

I agree the concept needs to evolve somewhat, but I suspect the "way
forward" lies in using software to perform statistical analysis on the
commentaries and edits applied to articles. I suspect that trends
would emerge that could be used to provide a "veracity metric" for the
information that people could take into account when deciding whether
or not to trust it, and potentially a way of raising the awareness of
bad information in groups that can contribute to its correction.

To me, it's an academic problem: "The mob contains a lot of
information. How do we mine and then refine it such that the accuracy
is maximised?" Fascinating stuff!

Matt
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32