Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

I've often wondered whether it would be possible to somehow use the wikipedia's underlying principles to run a company.

I think he's missing something there - abut the best way to express it briefly is "possibility vs. probabilty".

I see this a lot in various justifications - someone will say "it's possible to do this", where in reality it's very very unlikely.

Or maybe he's just talking past the critic.

Teachers need to get on top of creating critical thinkers in their students rather than worrying they are getting polluted by untraditionally peer reviewed content.

I don't think it's very very unlikely that someone might click on 'discussion' to learn more about the debates surrounding an article, or 'history' to read previous versions. But I do concede that there is no guarantee that anyone will do this.

My point was just this: the critic offered the lack of critical skills of her own students as a critique of Wikipedia. Now, there are certainly many things which one might make as valid criticisms of Wikipedia, but this one I find to be less than compelling.

People may read _anything_ uncritically, and that's a damned shame of course, but it is hardly Wikipedia's fault. And at least as compared to any other encyclopedia in history, we do offer at least a variety of new kinds of opportunities for people to engage with the work, from reading the history, reading the discussions, talking to the authors, or actually joining the conversation.

Turning the point around, I'm glad that people who don't read critically also don't edit Wikipedia. :-)

I'm working blind, but I suspect their critique was along the lines that Wikipedia can be misleading for students, because it's often perceived as somehow "authoritative" when, in a traditional academic sense, it's not.

It's understandable, but still somewhat talking past the point, to reply that indeed, it's not authoritative in the traditional sense, but it has the possibility of interactivity.

i might be possible to build a business firm using (but not upon) these principles. co-op housing is the closest existing example i can think of. but i am certain that a healthy and positive educational system can be established upon these principles.

It's not the source (WikiPedia vs Britiannica) at the core of the issue, but the expectation/norm and fallbile notion of "authoritive" sources. It's time we all learn to think and question much more than we do.

Britannica does nothing at all the support critical thinking, since the assumption is, "It is pure and authority, and I do not have to question the content" or "I assume this is the abolsute truth". It is the world of parroting, cutting and pasting.

WikiPedia by being so-called "un authoritative" should and hopefully stir up the notion that all sources need questioning, dialogue, which is a Good Thing.

Don't blame WikiPedia if students are taking its content for the truth.

The problem with Wikipedia is that fanatics always win. Most reasonable people wouldn't have the patience to re-edit the same page again and again, but fanatics and special interests sure do. The result is that some pages have been taken over my nutcases and ideologues, who keep them on their watchlists, and police any changes to them.