Posted by Mike Dennis on August 02, 2008 at 07:48:21 user MTD.
In Reply to: Re: On Wikis and Blogs (was Arthur Ransome Wikia) posted by Adam Quinan on August 01, 2008 at 16:55:44:
Adam - I didn't say that was what the Wikipedia article contained, I was using it as an example of where wrong information can be very dangerous and that this is the potential problem with Wikipedia (as is libel, deformation etc.). Such demands for putting the other view have arisen in a few USA university campuses and academic publishing houses (for an account of this see Deborah E Lipstadt's book 'History on Trial' about her defence of the libel action brought against her by David Irving, as in a previous book she called him a Holocaust denier - the trial proved he was.)
The difficulty is that once an accurate or incorrect article is out there then and you realise it you are then suspicious of all of them. I have a test for books about subjects that I feel I know a lot about, I look in the index for an entry on something I know well and then see what the book has to say about it; yes and even in books these things can be wrong - but print publishers are more aware of litigation, though following the recent case in England with regard to Facebook net sources will have to start becoming more aware.
As for camels, I agree I'd rather have one in the desert but I wouldn't want one designed by a committee!