~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
CBSNews.com: Blog
Over at CJR, Bryan Keefer offers a defense of Wikipedia. After weeks of controversy over its erroneous John Seigenthaler entry last month, Keefer says it’s all been overblown and the open-source encyclopedia has been a victim of a "schadenfreude"-driven MSM campaign. Keefer says Wiki represents the future:

“Part of the argument against Wikipedia rests on the idea that users aren't able to assess the credibility of the information they're reading. In truth, however, Internet users are getting smarter about figuring out whether to believe information they find online (or, for that matter, in major news outlets). Google is a big part of this trend. The search engine produces results based on how many sites link to a given page; the more links to a page, the higher the result. Those links are generated by human beings, who are presumably doing so because they think the information they're linking to is credible (or, at the very least, interesting).

Try dropping ‘Swiffer Wetjet’ into Google, for example. A rumor last year had it that the product, a floor cleaning system, was harmful to household pets. But the first Google results are pages debunking the myth, not propagating it. In other words, the more credible information has risen to the top.”

So the value of Wikipedia, and the Internet, is that the truth will rise to the top, eventually? I wonder, would Mr. Seigenthaler agree? And in spite of company assurance, how can you really be sure your "Swiffer Wetjet" isn't hurting Fluffy? Because Google says so?
Technorati tags:

No, but in three short clicks, in a matter of a minute or two - I found this from the ASPCA, which I thought was credible enought for me.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~