|
|
|
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 01:20 PM EDT |
Seemed like a rather balanced article, actually rather positive.
Some criticism of you by McBride and O'Gara is listed, but words like
"claimed" and "purported" are used in their quotes.
Let us know if you need anything changed, we can propose some corrections.
However, I don't see any issues at the moment.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 11:58 PM EDT |
Dear PJ and Groklaw readers,
Wikipedia is a system whereby anybody and everybody can add to or modify an
article. It is Crowdsourcing by definition. (Just like the blog comments here
on Groklaw).
For some purposes, for example, an article on Fermat's Last Theorum, it tends to
be fairly objective as people with expertise tend to spend time writing and
correcting the article. Sometimes there are good references to peer reviewed
(refereed) journals included.
For other purposes, where it suits the objective of some members of the crowd,
the information is biased or even false. So I would know not to trust
Wikipedia's accuracy on, for example, the life history of a polarizing political
figure. (Go figure.)
Therefore, for the intelligent reader, Wikipedia is always taken with healthy
intelligent skepticism. For the ignorant reader, it is taken as Gospel.
Indeed, this how media and speech of all kinds has been used through the ages as
propaganda by people for profit or pure evil intent.
That said, for a free and universally available explanation of many topics,
Wikipedia simply cannot be beat at this time (May 2013).
What system could be better than Wikipedia? An academic peer reviewed free and
detailed version of Wikipedia. Someone has probably already invented it, but it
is not as popular. Go google for it if you want.
Now on to our new arrival at Google, Kurzweil. I guess in that article which I
skimmed it said something about how his new AI knowledge system is using
Wikipedia as Gospel. I guess that is a first approximation to things. But a
good AI would included skepticism and understand quality peer review, and
therefore would look to build its knowledge (epistemology?) hierarchy as he
calls it, by looking for backup in weighting of the knowledge from trusted
sources. Perhaps it would go back to the trusted root signature (the Nobel
Prize winners) to vouch for other contributors, i.e. one ring to rule them all.
Who knows.
But PJ, you who I have respected and appreciated over these many years, please
to do be distraught over the crowd sourced nonsense that is written behind
anonymous electronic screens by the ignorant or the ill motivated who would
attempt to discredit you and your work.
Best,
Anon of Old and
A Secret Admirer
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
