Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?

["joe@xxxxxxxxxxx" <jsalerno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think their "business model" is the open source community, except to 
be a part of that you must actually know something about programming and 
writing computer code. So it works for them.

joe salerno

Tom Fine wrote:
> One man's opinion ...
>
> They have a very long way to go. As long as they insist on this 
> "democratic" mode of operation where any crackpot can hit the edit 
> button, and in typical dot-bomb fashion they don't have a viable 
> business model to pay a staff of experts to vet information before it's 
> published, they will have little credibility with serious students or 
> experts of any topic. The web-world often confuses "democracy" with mob 
> rule. The simple fact is that in-depth knowledge is something gained 
> through hard work and an expert is different from a wingnut with a bunch 
> of opinions, and both shouldn't have equal power to publish into what 
> pretends to be a fact-based "encyclopedia."
>
> Now, that said, here's my wingnut opinion for the day -- expertise can 
> also be an echo-chamber that is just a well-vetted myth-amplifier, so we 
> all need to be careful to keep the windows open and the air fresh.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard L. Hess" 
> <arclists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 10:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?
>
>
> > At 11:22 PM 2008-10-15, Steven C. Barr wrote:
> > > --Thus, it seems, Wikipedia doesn't want anything which can be 
> > > demonstrably
> > > PROVEN to be accurate...which might explain its less-than-impressive
> > > repuation for truth and accuracy...?!
> >
> > Steven,
> >
> > Did you study the link
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
> > ???
> >
> > There you will find what I wrote about in a previous post. They are 
> > TRYING to set rules for good reasons. Whether it always works or not 
> > is the discussion, but the basis of using only secondary sources that 
> > have already been vetted as a way to keep un-vetted original thinking 
> > out of their general reference work.
> >
> > If nothing else, I'm finding Wikipedia a good place to find better 
> > sources--especially as more and more articles grow footnote references 
> > as the founders hoped.
> >
> > Their approach is increasing the likelihood that the references used 
> > to craft articles have been peer reviewed. Their point is similar to 
> > Tom's about triangulation, just quoting original data without 
> > interpretation can get really confusing and can lead to misleading 
> > conclusions. Their assumption is if the secondary source makes the 
> > interpretation and it has been published then it is likely to be 
> > somewhat mainstream.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> > Richard L. Hess                   email: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Aurora, Ontario, Canada       (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
> > Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
> > Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.