With Wikipedia, at least, one can rely on the discretion of the most authoritative of the collaborative editors, and a sound process in place for contending with what’s contentious. I mean, we’re not comparing Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Brittanica any longer, obviously, but let’s compare that to the premium brands in the commodification of truth, outfits like Politifact. If Politifact checks out mentally whilst trying to assign a truth-rating, there’s nothing you can do. At the very least, Wikipedia is participatory in a way that a journalistic side-project website run by the Tampa Bay Times never will be.
With Wikipedia, at least, one can rely on the discretion of the most authoritative of the collaborative editors, and a sound process in place for contending with what’s contentious. I mean, we’re not comparing Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Brittanica any longer, obviously, but let’s compare that to the premium brands in the commodification of truth, outfits like Politifact. If Politifact checks out mentally whilst trying to assign a truth-rating, there’s nothing you can do. At the very least, Wikipedia is participatory in a way that a journalistic side-project website run by the Tampa Bay Times never will be.