[78-L] Wikipedia (was: Bloop, Bleep Not OT, some of the examples exist on issued 78s)

[Kristjan Saag]

On 2013-03-05 16:17, David Lennick wrote:
> Some inaccuracies in this (hey, it's WackyPackia) but one interesting claim,
> that the word "blooper" is derived from "blue pencil" (i.e. censorable).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blooper
>
> dl
Isn't it time we stop calling Wikipedia names?
Today it's the most reliable source of information there is on this 
earth. Compared to available printed encyclopaedias there are less 
errors in Wikipedia, simply because errors are corrected all the time. 
It's up to you and me to do it, and if we can present good evidence for 
our corrections no one will complain.

I work with a weekly radio programme, playing laidback music from the 
1920's till today, mixing things like Bix, Charles Trenet and Fleet 
Foxes into a two hour music propaganda. Part of my job is to present the 
tunes, the artists, the times when the recordings were made etc. I look 
for details in Gelatt, Kinkle, Rust, Cliffe, Feather's Encyclopedia Of 
Jazz,  All Music Guide To Jazz,various other encyclopedias and 
discographies, both printed and webbased. My experience is: apart from 
the above mentioned, and a few more well researched publications, most 
printed material, even dissertations, are less reliable than Wikipedia. Why?

Becase most others have been written by experts who have become experts 
not because of their interest in details, but because they've been able 
to summarize a topic, sort the details, see what's important and not 
important and publish their results. This is true expertise, and, I 
admit,  this is why the least reliable articles in Wikipedia are those 
that try to encompass large areas of information. Few of these articles 
have been written by acknowledged experts; they are often compromises 
between various enthousiasts, all  with their own agenda.
But precisely these enthusiast are the ones who have made Wikipedia 
reliable in other areas. These are the nerds, the fault-finders, the 
ones who sacrifice hours and days to check a date, a mx number, a birth 
place, in order to get it right. Some of those are us; I'd be surprised 
if no 78 list member haven't, at least once, walked in and corrected 
misinormation in Wikipedia or elsewhere on the net.

And this is Wikipedia's strength: it brings togheter all those expert 
wannabe's, or true experts within a restricted area, and gives them a 
chance to influence general knowledge and to collaborate. Most 
fault-finders are humble creatures: believers in truth in the Karl 
Popper sense: something is true until it's falsified. And we all profit 
from this competition. Compare this to the "good" old days when Experts 
ruled and were responsible even for petty details, which could be dead 
wrong but remained in the encyclopedias until the next edition twenty 
years later, sometimes even longer.
So instead of calling Wikipedia names: use it to spread what you think 
is true, add detailed references (what printed encyclopedias did ever do 
that?) and wait for someone even wiser than you to correct you.
It's the ideal world for combattingmisinformation - so why don't we 
recognize it as such?
Kristjan