Danah Boyd put up a good post yesterday looking thoughtfully at Wikipedia entries and the credibility of mass media. It's worth a read, and the comments are also quite good, a double whammy rarely seen! In some ways, she makes some of the points I touched on the other day regarding the Google experiment in allowing comments, which raises the question of who gets to decide authority. As she puts it:

To those Wikipedians out there who happen to read my blog - is there any conversation amongst Wikipedians about how to deal with mass media coverage? Is there any conversation about how mass media coverage is often biased or inaccurate? Why is mass media coverage so valued? (And why on earth am I notable because I'm profiled in mass media instead of because of why mass media was covering me?)

In the comments section, Kat responds with two especially cogent points:

Most Wikipedia editors know that mass media is often unreliable... but it's all we can agree on. "What is a reliable source" has occupied literally tens of thousands of messages. What the policy should say and when to make exceptions on it start flamewars of legendary intensity; I think some often forget that Wikipedians made the policies and thus can change them if they're bad.

And then:

Bouncing around some more -- I was recently at a meeting with several "outsiders" to Wikipedia, web and media professionals, brainstorming about ways to improve Wikipedia's quality; one of the first suggestions was simply education about critical thinking, about Wikipedia and about all media: blogs, newspapers, magazines, traditional reference books. But that's hard, and not quick, and to accomplish it effectively requires a huge effort; it's worth doing and people are doing it, but it doesn't happen fast enough and then more people come in who don't know what it's about.

In some ways, this thoughtful discussion reassures me greatly -- it finds the middle ground where value so often lives. Yes, Wikipedia is a valuable source, yes, it can be as accurate/inaccurate as its sources, yes, there are some thorny problems and solutions will be slow in coming.

Progress, not perfection.

email digg delicious live it!