The Technium

New Kind of Truth

Wikipedia: Where consistent opinions are correct opinions.

[Ooops. I inadvertently published this entry before I was finished. I’ll return to this later.]

  • htom

    As I’ve been told so many times I’ve quit counting, Wikipedia is not correct, it is Verifiable from Reliable Sources. That a usually Reliable Source could be incorrect is a notion that hasn’t seriously entered their rules.

  • Finite

    “That a usually Reliable Source could be incorrect is a notion that hasn’t seriously entered their rules.”

    LOL, yeah, wikipedians don’t know the first thing about changing and contradictory sources, they’re totally stuck in a static world where everything must be “wrong” or “right” amirite? Wait, no, that is actually everyone working in pre-wiki media. I think if you look you’ll find Wikipedia has many excellent articles that cite sources which contradict eachother.

  • Nik

    I’m checking this entry a couple of times a week with full anticipation for your opinion on this subject!

  • vanderleun

    Is that going to be the foundation of a comment on the MIT Wiki article?

    I can’t wait.

  • Russ

    Consistent opinions are correct opinions? Like Nazism?

  • Skaramuche

    Er, wikipedia? Isn’t that…the whole of human society? With exceptions, obviously, but peer pressure and mob mentality create that same effect everywhere. I don’t see that Wikipedia is a special example.

  • Christopher

    Science – and all empirical knowledge – is neither democratic nor opinion-based.

  • Cynthia

    in many different points of view

  • Jamie

    Reminds me of a line from The Simpsons: “I know how we can tell what’s the truth. We’ll take a vote!”

  • Mushin J. Schilling

    It’s so easy to confuse opinions and truths, especially with a headline that proposes something new…
    And yes, it’s obvious: consistent opinions are preferable over inconsistent ones; I giuess it’s fine to then call them correct.
    (But who would want to have a ‘correct opinion’ anyway?)