Interesting blog entry about Wikipedia bashing

Techdirt:Who Do You Trust, The Wiki Or The Reporter?

I was reading Techdirt, and there was an interesting commentary on a reporter's completely misinformed view that since Wikipedia isn't a credentialed resource, that suddenly it's not credible. What a load of crap. I mean, look at any textbook, likely it will be filled with errors and mistakes. However, textbooks aren't a community resource, unlike someting like Wikipedia, so good luck getting anything corrected.

The people who contribute to the service tend to know what they are talking about and when there are mistakes with entries, you better believe that they are fixed quickly. I find it funny that when Techdirt challenged the reporter to puposefully insert incorrect facts into a Wikipedia entry and see how long it took until it was fixed, it was pretty much brushed off.

I mean, sure I don't work for Konami, but does that suddenly invalidate the hours of work I've spent inserting information into Wikipedia about Bemani-related information and instantly make it all lies? According to this guy, it does.

But really, what do you trust more, a dynamic community-driven resource with an agenda of spreading reliable information that's constantly undergoing development and additions, or slow-moving corporate agenda backed information resources where it can take months for a simple typographical error to get fixed?

What do I know, though.. I'm a fan of this "dangerous" and "misleading" web resource. Of course, the reporter in the article was basing his information on heresay from a librarian, who I'm sure isn't credentialed to judge the authenticity of information in an encyclopedia. Just goes to show, having press credentials gives you the authority to blow anything out of proportion.