tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051519380220252201.post7543417134134053956..comments2024-03-21T10:16:51.212-07:00Comments on Impressions of Vince: Why I hate Wikipedia, Part OneDerrick Banghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12885694730612878577noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051519380220252201.post-9286391927791686192014-02-02T08:31:56.155-08:002014-02-02T08:31:56.155-08:00You're somewhat mistaken on how Wikipedia work...You're somewhat mistaken on how Wikipedia works. While on the surface, yes, anyone can submit changes that are not vetted before "publication", there's a deeper system that has a much better epistemological foundation.<br /><br />The core of Wikipedia's epistemology is based on verifiability: Wikipedia itself, based on contributions that include pseudonymous and anonymous authors, isn't "reliable", but it can be reliable <em>indirectly</em> by referencing sources that are more conventionally reliable.<br /><br />If you see an error on Wikipedia about Vince Guaraldi, don't simply replace it with the truth: add a reference to a secondary source that confirms what you're saying. In your particular case, even referencing your own book(s) might not be a bad idea, despite the conflict of interest (you have a good-faith interest in correcting the facts). As an expert, though, you can presumably reference a wider variety of sources, including secondary sources that you used in your own research, for public benefit. These references anchor assertions to fact, and will easily settle disputes in their favour as long as no other (reliable) sources contradict them.<br /><br />So yes, you can, in fact, take on Wikipedia's authors on their own terms, because those "own terms" are framed by the scholarship that we value. Wikipedia isn't perfect: it's an ongoing project, and the world too often takes its drafts for final copy. That being established, I can only invite you to help improve what drafts exist.Nihiltreshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nihiltresnoreply@blogger.com