The utility of an encyclopedia is directly proportional to the reliability of its entries.
Surely the very idea of an open-content encyclopedia is doomed to failure?
A proliferation of bogus articles, vandalism, the misinformation of bored and ignorant Netizens with a didactic itch.
So how can Wikipedia survive when any cretin with a computer can edit, delete or create articles?
The explaination given in Time (It's a Wiki, Wiki World, June 6, 2005) explains:
"Naturally, there are also a lot of idiots, vandals and fanatics, who take advantage of Wikipedia's open system to deface, delete or push one-sided views. Sometimes extreme action has to be taken. [..] But for the most part, the geeks have a huge advantage: they care more. Wikipedia lets you put your favorite articles on a watch list and notifies you if anyone else adds to or changes them. According to an M.I.T. study, an obscenity randomly inserted on Wikipedia is removed in 1.7 min., on average. Vandals might as well be spray-painting walls with disappearing ink."
[Chris Taylor]
"Open-content encyclopedias are a useful example of how information can involve in synergistic homeostasis."
-- Richard K. Edel, Boulevard, 2005, 'Epistemology in the Age of Digital Reproduction' Autonomedia, Semiotext(e)
But one is still tempted to quote Eliot :
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
-- T. S. Eliot, The Rock, 1934.
