RE: [xml-dev] Recent allegations about me

["Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>]

> <strong>The hard question:  what is the process for 
> determining the truth, falsity and/or applicability of an 
> edit to a topic?</strong>

If you're asking what is the process for determining what Wikipedia says on
a subject, then we know the answer: it's a democratic process moderated by
benevolant dictators. We also know that the process is imperfect; but I for
one believe that it's nevertheless as good as or better than the process for
determining what appears in other more traditionally authoritative media
such as academic papers, history books, and newspapers.

In fact I think Wikipedia pushes the case for traditional citation of
sources too strongly. One of its great strengths compared to traditional
processes is that it allows someone with personal knowledge to challenge the
inaccuracies that have become accepted truth by being repeated often enough.
To me, "I was there" is much stronger evidence than "I read it in a book",
and Wikipedia often allows history to be written by those who were there. 

Yes, there's plenty of rubbish in Wikipedia. But you can spot the rubbish.
To me, it's a brilliant resource, and proves to me that the democratisation
of knowledge is possible. 

I see no harm at all if some of the participants are paid to participate, so
long as the usual ton of bricks falls on them if they abuse their
privileges. After all, we don't usually consider academic research to be
devalued just because it was sponsored by industry or by government.

Michael Kay