The argument against Wikipedia by many is that it is simply not authoritative, that one just doesn't know how accurate it is, that the credentials of the editors are questionable. And yet, IMHO, the genius of Wikipedia comes through especially during events such as Katrina and Gustav.Questions: For information on what is happening and has happened regarding Hurricane Gustav, where is your most reliable and up-to-date source? Commercial news organizations, Encyclopedia Britannica, or Wikipedia? Or is it somewhere else?
Who do you trust? Do you trust CNN, Fox News, or local news for example, more than Wikipedia in getting non-hyped, reliable and fair news coverage?
ATTENTION: Residents of areas affected by Hurricane Gustav are advised to seek advice and information from local authorities through television and radio. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your area. Do not decide whether to leave your house, shelter, or vehicle based on Wikipedia information.
2 comments:
Jim,
I think you've identified the strength of wikipedia, it's editors (us). While it's true that just about anything can be edited by just about anyone, if erroneous information is posted the "crowd" tends to correct that pretty quickly. This is especially true with popular topics. For tracking developments on storms I like to listen to the National Weather Service.
On a related note if anyone is looking for Google Earth files to track the storm check out the Google Earth Blog and the Google LatLong blog.
Richard
Thanks for the interesting information.
Post a Comment