dazu heute in der New York Times ...

Arne Hoffmann, Sunday, 12.03.2006, 18:48 (vor 6831 Tagen) @ Arne Hoffmann

Als Antwort auf: Re: 30 Jahre Männerbewegung von Arne Hoffmann am 11. März 2006 09:34:43:

... folgender Kommentar:

Anonymous Source Is Not the Same as Open Source
By RANDALL STROSS
Published: March 12, 2006
WIKIPEDIA, the free online encyclopedia, currently serves up the following: Five billion pages a month. More than 120 languages. In excess of one million English-language articles. And a single nagging epistemological question: Can an article be judged as credible without knowing its author?
Wikipedia says yes, but I am unconvinced.
Dispensing with experts, the Wikipedians invite anyone to pitch in, writing an article or editing someone else's. No expertise is required, nor even a name. (…)
Once upon a time, Encyclopaedia Britannica recruited Einstein, Freud, Curie, Mencken and even Houdini as contributors. The names helped the encyclopedia bolster its credibility. Wikipedia, by contrast, provides almost no clues for the typical article by which reliability can be appraised. A list of edits provides only screen names or, in the case of the anonymous editors, numerical Internet Protocol addresses. Wasn't yesterday's practice of attaching "Albert Einstein" to an article on "Space-Time" a bit more helpful than today's "71.240.205.101"?
(…) Biographical entries, for example, are often accompanied by controversy. Several recent events have shown how anyone can tamper with someone else's entry. Congressional staff members have been unmasked burnishing articles about their employers and vandalizing those of political rivals. (Sample addition: "He likes to beat his wife and children.") (…)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/business/yourmoney/12digi.html?ex=1142830800&en=3...