Google's WikiPedia

Its a good concept and I'm not sure it will necessarily be inaccurate, sure some of it will be but if it can attract experts who are prepared to write under their own name that'd be more credible than anonymous Wikipedia. From Google's perspective its a good idea because all they do is create the system and then profit from other people's content without having to create it themselves.
 
It can not possibly be more inaccurate than Wikiputia and Google having a reputation it will not be as irresponsible. At least when disputes arise it will probably be handled in a timely manner and impartially.
 
Hmmm, I don't know about this

So once you considered an 'expert' <--- whatever that is online and off, you can start copying and pasting Wikipedia articles slowly but surely .. with the added advertising incentive .. under the "expert" guise. :rolleyes:
 
It will inevitably be different because any system that doesn't draw on collective wisdom will be less detailed.

Wikipedia is brilliant because people who know a little about something can add that little bit of wisdom. The collective mind is larger and better than the singular expert mind. Naturally the expert knows a larger volume than any other person, but many people together know more than him... Am I making sense?
 
antowan said:
It will inevitably be different because any system that doesn't draw on collective wisdom will be less detailed.

Wikipedia is brilliant because people who know a little about something can add that little bit of wisdom. The collective mind is larger and better than the singular expert mind. Naturally the expert knows a larger volume than any other person, but many people together know more than him... Am I making sense?
Click to expand...

Mmm, I can see what you're trying to say, but I respectfully disagree :). Collecting a bunch of ignorant people together won't give you wisdom. It's like multiplying with zero! A bunch of people regurgitating misinformation they saw on television, or read on the internet doesn't equate to wisdom. Rather one expert that spent time studying the subject, i.e. reading actual peer-reviewed books published by reputable authors. In the case of wisdom, the majority does NOT rule.
 
antowan said:
It will inevitably be different because any system that doesn't draw on collective wisdom will be less detailed.

Wikipedia is brilliant because people who know a little about something can add that little bit of wisdom. The collective mind is larger and better than the singular expert mind. Naturally the expert knows a larger volume than any other person, but many people together know more than him... Am I making sense?
Click to expand...
You make sense but unfortunately I have to agree with others like Valis here. Wikiputia is more reflective on the collective propaganda of the human race than the collective "wisdom" of those editors. Personally I think wikiputia has only worsened the situation. Instead of using reputable encyclopedia articles people take the stuff regurgitated from elsewhere on the web as the truth without verifying it. It's only good for technical information and how-tos, exactly what it does not want to provide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X