Comments on: How does Wikipedia affect experts? http://ragesoss.com/blog/2007/06/29/how-does-wikipedia-affect-experts/ assorted blogging by Sage Ross Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:26:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Sage http://ragesoss.com/blog/2007/06/29/how-does-wikipedia-affect-experts/comment-page-1/#comment-55 Sage Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:35:00 +0000 http://ragesoss.com/blog/?p=88#comment-55 AMac, thanks for the link. Craig Henry has a very provocative interpretation; as is hopefully clear from my post, my views don't quite line up with Baker or Henry. I think Henry's idea that newspapers have been sinking their excess profit into low-value-added content isn't the right picture of what's happening. The question is, as they feel financial crunch, are they going to cut sports analysis, opinion and trendspotting, or local hard news and investigative journalism? I think probably the latter; the competition is forcing them to focus on the kinds of things that will get them the most readers instead of choosing what they think people need to know about. On the surface, from any sort of (classical, neo-, or modern American) liberal perspective, that seems like a good thing. But it amounts to letting your kid choose ice cream for dinner every night. Wider margins, if not monopolies, gave newspaper editors more control <br/>over readers' news diets; competition and tight margins means catering to the a priori news preferences of the broadest market segment possible...who don't know nearly as much about what their news choices are pushing out as the editors do.<br/><br/>It seems like the fundamental problem is the differential between print and internet advertising; if online newspapers can't make more than a fraction of the ad revenue online as they could in print, even with the same level of readership, then there are going to be problems.<br/><br/><br/>Re: Wikipedia<br/><br/>I think the pattern of Wikipedia use that you use is pretty common, among those who are prone to skepticism.<br/><br/>More importantly, I think Wikipedia's widespread use among people who aren't normally skeptical (enough) of what they read is fostering more skepticism about published material in general.<br/><br/>After all, Wikipedia (transparently unreliable medium that it is) often points out flaws and errors that mainstream media and traditional popular sources overlook. And Wikipedia's reputation for (un)reliability is actually worse than reality, unlike traditional sources that have a much better reputation than they deserve. So I see Wikipedia as having very little downside in terms of media literacy AMac, thanks for the link. Craig Henry has a very provocative interpretation; as is hopefully clear from my post, my views don’t quite line up with Baker or Henry. I think Henry’s idea that newspapers have been sinking their excess profit into low-value-added content isn’t the right picture of what’s happening. The question is, as they feel financial crunch, are they going to cut sports analysis, opinion and trendspotting, or local hard news and investigative journalism? I think probably the latter; the competition is forcing them to focus on the kinds of things that will get them the most readers instead of choosing what they think people need to know about. On the surface, from any sort of (classical, neo-, or modern American) liberal perspective, that seems like a good thing. But it amounts to letting your kid choose ice cream for dinner every night. Wider margins, if not monopolies, gave newspaper editors more control
over readers’ news diets; competition and tight margins means catering to the a priori news preferences of the broadest market segment possible…who don’t know nearly as much about what their news choices are pushing out as the editors do.

It seems like the fundamental problem is the differential between print and internet advertising; if online newspapers can’t make more than a fraction of the ad revenue online as they could in print, even with the same level of readership, then there are going to be problems.

Re: Wikipedia

I think the pattern of Wikipedia use that you use is pretty common, among those who are prone to skepticism.

More importantly, I think Wikipedia’s widespread use among people who aren’t normally skeptical (enough) of what they read is fostering more skepticism about published material in general.

After all, Wikipedia (transparently unreliable medium that it is) often points out flaws and errors that mainstream media and traditional popular sources overlook. And Wikipedia’s reputation for (un)reliability is actually worse than reality, unlike traditional sources that have a much better reputation than they deserve. So I see Wikipedia as having very little downside in terms of media literacy

]]> By: AMac http://ragesoss.com/blog/2007/06/29/how-does-wikipedia-affect-experts/comment-page-1/#comment-51 AMac Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:46:00 +0000 http://ragesoss.com/blog/?p=88#comment-51 On the internet-related woes of the news industry, see Russell Baker's recent "Goodbye to Newspapers?" from the NY Review of Books. <br/><br/>Linked via <a HREF="http://leadandgold.blogspot.com/2007/08/newspaper-today-and-tomorrow-russell.html" REL="nofollow">Lead and Gold</a>, where Craig Henry offers interpretations that are distinctly at odds with Baker's.<br/><br/>----<br/><br/>On changing patterns of knowledge 'consumption': Wikipedia has scratched my itch regarding a plethora of topics, from banal to crucial. I'm reasonably confident that an article will provide the lay of the land, and it often serves as the final word on trivial matters (how much more do I need to know about the Cylons?)<br/><br/>But since I never know the biases and blind spots of the authors, I never trust Wikipedia on any question of interpretation on any issue of substance. In those cases, it is an early stop in a broader search. <br/><br/>How common is this approach? I suspect it's not rare among those prone to skepticism. On the internet-related woes of the news industry, see Russell Baker’s recent “Goodbye to Newspapers?” from the NY Review of Books.

Linked via Lead and Gold, where Craig Henry offers interpretations that are distinctly at odds with Baker’s.

—-

On changing patterns of knowledge ‘consumption’: Wikipedia has scratched my itch regarding a plethora of topics, from banal to crucial. I’m reasonably confident that an article will provide the lay of the land, and it often serves as the final word on trivial matters (how much more do I need to know about the Cylons?)

But since I never know the biases and blind spots of the authors, I never trust Wikipedia on any question of interpretation on any issue of substance. In those cases, it is an early stop in a broader search.

How common is this approach? I suspect it’s not rare among those prone to skepticism.

]]> By: Dave http://ragesoss.com/blog/2007/06/29/how-does-wikipedia-affect-experts/comment-page-1/#comment-35 Dave Thu, 05 Jul 2007 04:43:00 +0000 http://ragesoss.com/blog/?p=88#comment-35 http://xkcd.com/c285.html<br/><br/>wikipedian protestor http://xkcd.com/c285.html

wikipedian protestor

]]> By: All Blog Spots http://ragesoss.com/blog/2007/06/29/how-does-wikipedia-affect-experts/comment-page-1/#comment-34 All Blog Spots Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:24:00 +0000 http://ragesoss.com/blog/?p=88#comment-34 nice blog nice blog

]]>