--- Barry Wellman <wellman@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote:
For the heck of it, I've been watching 30-50 Wikipedia sites for the past 6 months. There are many conflicts on there, most of which get resolved.
But how are the resolved? I have watched a few wiki conflicts that are resolved it seems to me by the biggest guerrilla -- the contributor who has the most time dedicated to editing and quibbling. Where the end result is a product that does not reflect accuracy as much as it reflects the point of view of the guerrillas. In the one page I watched in particular, the content was edited away from expert opinion (that could be cited and sourced) to misinformation of the peanut gallery. I know this is subjective ... what is the right rendition of information after all ... right? Perhaps. But my observation is that Wikipedia is best when it deals with generally held information - but when the information is expert that only a few have done sufficient work to accurately understand - the views of the few are rejected for the inferior information of the majority. Sort of the critique of democracy as a tyranny of the majority. The majority or guerrilla wins, regardless of whether the views are well informed and would pass a laugh-test at a peer reviewed journal. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Cybertelecom :: Federal Internet Law & Policy www.cybertelecom.org Washington hOCKEY Wiki wockey.stikipad.com News Tryouts Clubs Leagues Pickup Rinks Info