[Harp-L] Re: (off topic) pathetic, again (wikipedia)

[Jp Pagan <jpl_pagan@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- In harp-l-archives@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Steve Shaw"
<moorcot@...> wrote:
>
> Gosh, what a relief it isn't just me.  Only a few
days ago, on A. N. Other 
> forum, not to do with the harmonica, someone was
attempting to speak 
> authoritatively on the topic in question using
Wikipedia as his only source. 
>   My somewhat sceptical reply was that, though I
couldn't really question 
> his source as such, I would have to take his
advocacy with a large pinch of 
> salt as I was only too aware of the dodgy Wikipedia
harmonica entry, on a 
> topic I did know something about.  It's a bit like
trusting what newspapers 
> say, until the day they print something about you,
when you then realise 
> what rubbish they are capable of peddling.  Like
you, I was challenged to 
> edit the entry, but the game was definitely not
worth the candle...
>

first off, i'm not going to defend Wikipedia as the
ultimate source for everything, though i do use it
rather regularly. it's a h*ll of a lot faster and more
convenient (and more wide-ranging) than grabbing up a
volume of Brittanica. in fact, i used it to look up
info on derek trucks today, and Steve Vai (ok, so he's
*arguably* not Gen X. he's still a hero to Gen X
people. i wasn't sure which way to take the comment ;)

anyway, Wikipedia is something you have to take with a
grain of salt. on the one hand, it covers subjects
with a depth not seen in most other places, thanks in
part to nerdy types like us who sit there and fill out
harmonica entries and whatnot. on the other hand, it
can be wrong. it is, like all other sources of
information, written by people. and without a formal
structure, it may be more prone to error than say,
Brittanica. however, on that point, Nature did a
comparison:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
"The exercise revealed numerous errors in both
encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the
difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the
average science entry in Wikipedia contained around
four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three."
in other words, in random sample focusing on facts, it
wasn't much more wrong than Brittanica. is Bob Dylan a
folk musician? i sure think of him as one. his most
famous and enduring music is, to a significant degree,
folk music (or folky rock, at least). the rest is
kinda debatable. is Michalek acid? dunno. should Adler
have been included? sure. Borrah Minevitch? Tommy
Morgan? Will Shade? Blues Birdhead? anyway... 

just remember to use it, and to try and backup what
you read by investigating your sources a little (like,
say, try listening to a little Jason Ricci yourself
and deciding if it's blues. i'd say not... maybe you'd
say different...)

  --Jp

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com