June 6, 2005
The Authority Debate: A Chronological Link List
Initial Press Volleys
Fasoldt, Al. “Wikipedia is a free-for-all ‘encyclopedia’ that allows anyone to change the content. Is that OK?” Technofile. 25 Aug. 2004. http://aroundcny.com/technofile/index.cfm. 6 June 2005.
In this column for Central New York’s Around Town news site (sponsored by Channel 10), Fasoldt warned that Wikipedia is untrustworthy and that educators should not allow students to cite it. He quoted a local high school librarian as saying that Wikipedia is not an authoritative resource, a remark the librarian later denied. The column was widely disparaged in the blogosphere, and the current page for the article includes a notation that the author received dozens of letters on the issue, “most of them deploring his stand.”
In this one-paragraph response to Fasoldt’s piece, the author contends that concerns regarding Wikipedia’s “lack of editorial review” demonstrate a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is or the process that drives it.
Mike. “Who Do You Trust, the Wiki or the Reporter?” Techdirt. 25 Aug. 2004. http://techdirt.com/articles/20040827/0132238_F.shtml. 6 June 2005.
Details the author’s correspondance with Fasoldt. Its primary intent is retaliation, but it does extend the argument that Wikipedia is a self-correcting community.