Dumbshit Dept.

Costly fact checking and Wikipedia

After the recent Oprah book club fiasco, the publisher has come out to say that Fact Checking is too costly:

Unlike journalists, publishers have never seen it as their purview to verify that the information in nonfiction books is true. Editors and publishers say the profit-margins in publishing don't allow for hiring fact-checkers. Instead, they rely on authors to be honest, and on their legal staffs to avoid libels suits. "An author brings a manuscript saying it represents the truth, and that relationship is one of trust," says Ms. Talese.

Recently Wikipedia has been hammered on credibility claims and I said that eventually Wikipedia will forge a new credibility model that we cannot grasp yet. To further muse on that thread, I think in light of these fact-checking revelations and recent debunking of a cloning researcher in Korea, we'll see that the high-road taken by academics criticizing WikiPedia isn't nearly as high as they would claim. I think the non-wikipedia world is likely to get knocked down a few pegs and sink lower in the overall credibility ratings as Wikipedia rises in its credibility. I wonder when the perceived credibility of Wikipedia rises above the credibility of for-profit publishers -- its only a matter of time.

Yes, fact checking is costly -- in a top-down model. Fact checking in a bottom-up model is distributed and built into the system. Which one is more scalable over the long term?

Technorati Tags: quality, wikipedia

Posted by Mayhem at January 31, 2006 03:25 PM