Power of Wikipedia + Lack of Accountability = Bad News, Does anyone disagree with that? Options

[Kato]

Let's cut back to the chase:

• Due to the power Wikipedia has attained in the world of information, and the fact that this power is wielded without the standards of accountability society traditionally requires, Wikipedia's model presents serious problems. (examples are plenty of the problems that this lack of accountability has created)

Does anyone disagree with that statement?

[thekohser]

Root, I think Jonny is saying that the pinprick is coming to pop the bubbles of "anonymous authority". I'll bet Jonny sees a future where you can print up whatever you want on the Internet, or on paper flyers on telephone poles, or shouted from rooftops... about whatever China, Scientology, Myanmar, Saudi topic you want.

But if you're going to do it anonymously, don't expect anyone to pay serious attention to its credibility.

Jon, sorry if I failed to interpret your meaning properly.

[Rootology]

Root, I think Jonny is saying that the pinprick is coming to pop the bubbles of "anonymous authority". I'll bet Jonny sees a future where you can print up whatever you want on the Internet, or on paper flyers on telephone poles, or shouted from rooftops... about whatever China, Scientology, Myanmar, Saudi topic you want.

But if you're going to do it anonymously, don't expect anyone to pay serious attention to its credibility.

But that's one point I disagree on as well. Wikipedia has it's issues, that's true, and I'm NOT disputing that. But if we took an independent website that was an authority on something--let's say the House of Saud, Exxon Mobile, or Halliburton. If the information is sound, and accurate, shouldn't that be entirely then the reader's discretion alone to determine it's weight and value... if the author of HouseofSaud-watch.com, ExxonMobile-watch.com, or Halliburton-watch.com is anonymous? On the Wikipedia front, Jimbo had dismissed WikiTruth as a hoax, that they fictionalized content, etc., until WikiTruth simply posted them I think hovering admin tools over Jimmy's own user page, wasn't it, and by demonstrating they had access to Deleted and Oversighted revisions. They're still anonymous, and an authority.

My whole point is that the MESSAGE is what matters and has value--not the author. An author or expert is just a name, or face, and not important. A Dickens novel is a Dickens novel in quality, regardless if he published it under the name Charles Dickens or Pierre Dumont; a Twain tale is a Twain tale in quality where he published in his name, or under the non de plume of "Farty McStinks Alot". A solid analysis on finance by Greenspan is a solid analysis of finance, regardless of whether it's written in his name, or if he publishes to http://treasury-dude.blogspot.com.

A message worth reading or publishing is one that stands on it's value independent of it's author's name.