Comments on: Reply to Nicholas Carr http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/04/27/reply-to-nicholas-carr/ Weblog about the Citizendium project and its Citizens. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:20:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.2 By: David Gerard http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/04/27/reply-to-nicholas-carr/#comment-9883 David Gerard Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:47:32 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/04/27/reply-to-nicholas-carr/#comment-9883 Minor factual note: Jimbo suggested Essjay to fill a gap in the Arbitration Committee and asked the AC mailing list (present and former arbitrators) what they thought, and the response was overwhelmingly positive. Minor factual note: Jimbo suggested Essjay to fill a gap in the Arbitration Committee and asked the AC mailing list (present and former arbitrators) what they thought, and the response was overwhelmingly positive.

]]> By: David Gerard http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/04/27/reply-to-nicholas-carr/#comment-9885 David Gerard Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:48:40 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/04/27/reply-to-nicholas-carr/#comment-9885 And rereading Nicholas Carr's piece, I still don't get that "Wikipedia claims to give you The Truth" thing at all. And rereading Nicholas Carr’s piece, I still don’t get that “Wikipedia claims to give you The Truth” thing at all.

]]> By: Larry Sanger http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/04/27/reply-to-nicholas-carr/#comment-9886 Larry Sanger Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:50:36 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/04/27/reply-to-nicholas-carr/#comment-9886 David Gerard, re your "minor factual note": that's irrelevant to the point made. Jimmy Wales is still in a position to make suggestions, and he abused that position by nominating someone that he <i>knew</i> committed identity fraud. Probably, a lot of the members of Arbitration Committee also knew, and didn't care, either. This is inexcusable. And he has still not apologized for this, by the way, or even acknowledged this particular problem. David Gerard, re your “minor factual note”: that’s irrelevant to the point made. Jimmy Wales is still in a position to make suggestions, and he abused that position by nominating someone that he knew committed identity fraud. Probably, a lot of the members of Arbitration Committee also knew, and didn’t care, either. This is inexcusable. And he has still not apologized for this, by the way, or even acknowledged this particular problem.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/04/27/reply-to-nicholas-carr/#comment-10003 Seth Finkelstein Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:56:36 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/04/27/reply-to-nicholas-carr/#comment-10003 After thinking about it, I believe by "Truth" Nick meant something like "social process by which we determine knowledge". That is, consider a hypothetical statement of "Wikipedia claims to get the facts straight" - a pretty laughable claim, given that anyone can toss any nonsense into it at any time. Versus "Wikipedia claims to have a social process by which we determine knowledge" - bingo, dead-on. NPOV, "wisdom of crowds", many eyes, etc. etc. That's Wikipedia's "in the truth business" perfectly. Note the *Defends* to not getting the facts straight is almost always to switch to the *process* discussion - defending against wrogn facts by saying process does and will eventually yield correct facts. After thinking about it, I believe by “Truth” Nick meant something like “social process by which we determine knowledge”.

That is, consider a hypothetical statement of “Wikipedia claims to get the facts straight” - a pretty laughable claim, given that anyone can toss any nonsense into it at any time.

Versus “Wikipedia claims to have a social process by which we determine knowledge” - bingo, dead-on. NPOV, “wisdom of crowds”, many eyes, etc. etc. That’s Wikipedia’s “in the truth business” perfectly.

Note the *Defends* to not getting the facts straight is almost always to switch to the *process* discussion - defending against wrogn facts by saying process does and will eventually yield correct facts.

]]>