I'll explain what I've been saying again:
Wikipedia isn't any less trustworthy than a published work, simply because it isn't published (that was the original claim I was refuting). I'm not saying it is completely trustworthy. I'm saying that just because something is published does not make it more trustworthy than Wikipedia by some magical printing process. I did present an argument that published works may be less trustworthy than Wikipedia, since authors may have ulterior motives when publishing that could affect their objectivity, but that is not a claim that Wikipedia is trustworthy, to prove the original argument inconclusive.
Experts will contribute knowledge freely. A lot of them will. This point doesn't mean that they contribute to Wikipedia, but it should at least make the idea plausible.
Finally, I've been arguing that software is knowledge. I'll post a reply to your latest followup shortly.
|
