By: Klaus Consine

Klaus Consine — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 01:19:21 +0000

Sag, Wikipedia necesita esas referencias al "mundo real", sobre todo al principio cuando casi nadie creia en que el proyecto fuese exitoso ni en la veracidad de las entradas
Recorda que una de las primeras declaraciones fue que Wikipedia no tenia mas errores que la Enciclopedia Britanica

Sag, Wikipedia needed those references to the "real world", more at the beggining when (almost) noone believes that the proyect were succeful nor in the veracity of the entries.
Remember that one of the first claims was that Wikipedia has no more errors that the Enciclopedia Brittanica

By: Sag Alles Ab

Sag Alles Ab — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:56:24 +0000

In your article, you wrote,

"For questions of real-world identity and personal authoritativeness,
Wikipedia relies on the rest of the world to supply the credentials."

I think the dependency is even deeper than that: Wikipedia depends on
"real-world", reliable books, newspapers, magazines, TV and radio
stations for the authenticity of ANY of its claims.

How real is the real world? And are Wikipedia and its users a part of
it? Apparently not.

Isn't it ironical to think that, if paper publications did not exist
(imagine a world where they have all been replaced by blogs and web
sites) then the authenticity of sources could not be safely decided
anymore?

Please do not misunderstand me. I agree that the PhilipRoth account
could belong to someone other than Philip Roth himself. But aren't we
being a little too naive in transfering the burden of authenticity
verification to the New Yorker or to any other "real-world"
publication?

I grew up during the Cold War, in a Latin American dictatorship. I
have learned not to trust "real-world" publications, especially those
coming from the US.

Comments on: Why Philip Roth had to explain himself in the New Yorker before his Wikipedia entry could be corrected

By: Klaus Consine

By: Sag Alles Ab