I had dinner last night with a doctor that said he was concerned that bed-side nurses are using WikiPedia to research treatments. His point was that there is often one source for recent research. Most likely the person that is doing the research is publishing journals, not contributing to WikiPedia. So, if WikiPedia has the information, it’s most likely paraphrased or another persons interpretation of the original source. And. The fear is valuable information is lost in the translation. In short, he was fine with WikiPedia for a number of things, just not as an information source where you have liability. I’m curious, has anyone been sued for using incorrect information from WikiPedia?
Yesterday, the Chronicle had an article in the business section about Yelp deleting some accounts and posts by users that appear to be swaping reviews with other local businesses. I scratch your back. You scratch mine type thing. It got me thinking at what point do services like Yelp become so influential that there value deteroriates since others are insented to provide skewed information. Also. What can Yelp do to ensure it remains a collection of unbiased reviews? Is deleting accounts and posts the answer? I think there must be a better way. Perhaps a warning on a review or a link to potentially biased reviews. Obvious spam is the only thing that should be deleted.
Undoubtedly an excellent article! Weve book marked it and mailed it to essentially all my pals since I am aware they are going to fascinated, thanks!