RECMGMT-L Archives

Records Management

RECMGMT-L@LISTSERV.IGGURU.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
John Montaña <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 5 Jul 2006 21:17:42 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (62 lines)
Ah, I think that what's newsworthy is that an assortment of misinformation
and opinion from anonymous sources got into what is supposed to be a factual
monograph.  It got revised several times rather rapidly, 'tis true, but it's
illustrative of the reality of Wikipedia:  What you read got put there by a
typically anonymous party, and may or may not have been vetted and may or
may not be accurate and impartial. And on a topic subject to less immediate
scrutiny, that misinformation or biased opinion could sit there for quite a
while masquerading as fact.

It may well be true that formally published material is inaccurate; however,
the existence of known contributors and editors provides some insurance
against it, and at the least, a known party to blame for the errors.  Thus,
I still conclude that for now, Wikipedia must be taken with a larger grain
of salt than more formally published sources such as an encyclopedia.

J.

John Montaņa
General Counsel
Cunningham & Montaņa, Inc.
29 Parsons Road
Landenberg PA 19350
610-255-1588
610-255-1558 fax
484-832-3260 mobile


-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Michael Edwards
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 8:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] Wikipedia

At 03:49 PM 7/5/2006, you wrote:
>For an illustration of the problems with Wikipedia, read this story on Ken
>Lay's death as recorded therein.
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060705/tc_nm/enron_lay_wikipedia_dc_4

I was just reading that, and failing to understand why it was even
newsworthy.

What it does clearly show, is a failing to understand the basic 
nature of Wikipedia. As one respondent to the story pointed out, 
Reuters has themselves previously issued stories too fast, and 
followed them up with multiple corrections.

I was thinking myself, after reading this, would it not be equally 
fair to now publish stories each and every day decrying that the 
various print encyclopedias don't have the fact straight on Ken Lay?


--
Michael Edwards 

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

ATOM RSS1 RSS2