(no subject)

[theweaselking]

"The Department of Homeland Security should not use the user-generated Wikipedia to decide whether an asylum seeker can enter the United States, a federal appeals court ruled Friday"

Comments

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Oh for *fuck's* sake.

[sebkha.livejournal.com]

People like the idea of the written word as Truth, and resent how Wikipedia demonstrates otherwise.

[shiffer.livejournal.com]

I don't see why this should be different then any other policy decision.

[kadath.livejournal.com]

Given how the DHS is a clown squad, Wikipedia is probably a better choice than the "making shit up" they do if left to their own devices.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

The Onion's writing some good stuff lately... wait, what.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Wikipedia doesn't "demonstrate otherwise" anymore than the error-riddled versions of Britannica have; indeed, in my experience Wiki is better at citing its sources than Britannica ever has been.

Now if the DHS employees had scrolled down to the "Cite Sources" section of the page and followed some links from there, we wouldn't all be pointing and laughing.

[sebkha.livejournal.com]

Wikipedia demonstrates otherwise because anyone can edit it. It subverts authority because everyone is aware that even they themselves could edit those articles, and that the experts who do edit the articles are people essentially just like them. It becomes uncomfortably clear how arbitrary the Truth is.

Really, everyone hates postmodernism. It's icky!

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Ah, well, I've always known that about the dweebs that are paid pennies to write Britannica articles, too. Call me ahead of my time. :)