Responding to recent criticisms that a large part of his new book was cribbed from Wikipedia, author Chris Anderson admitted the mistake was "just plain old sloppiness".
However, Anderson also thinks that the issue raised "questions about whether one should cite Wikipedia" and was adamant that he was "one of those who think you should".
"The level of scholarship and analysis on Wikipedia is improving by the day, and we neglect it at our peril," argued the author.
Anderson also considers Google to be 'the poster child of free', largely responsible for the sea-change in consumer's attitudes to paying for digital entertainment and information (or not paying for, as is more often the case).
Google is poster child
Anderson has been hitting the PR trail of late in order to publicise his book Free: The Future of a Radical Price, which is also available (for free) to listen to as an audiobook via Spotify.
Anderson's theory of free-conomics is based on the simple idea that, "by giving away products to lots of people, you can make money," as he explained to the NY Times.
"Google is the poster child of free," said Anderson. "It's one of the most profitable companies in America, but it doesn't show up on your credit-card statement."
Anderson considers the subscription-model of consumers being asked to pay a regular monthly fee in order to receive quality content via their TV or PC to be no longer sustainable.
"The marketplace has spoken. The marketplace wants free. Consumers want free, and if you decide to set up a subscription service, then your competitor will make a free one," argues Anderson.
Via New York Times
Your comments (3) Click to add a new comment
dcoetzee
July 21st 2009
3. Whether or not you cite Wikipedia as a reference, you are legally required to indicate if you use them as a source of content, per the attribution terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share Alike license. Sourcing Wikipedia should not cast factual doubt upon your writing, providing that you have actually read and fact-checked the portion that you copied.
Alert a moderator
watcherzero
July 20th 2009
2. Thats still the academic standing but in reality peer editing means its pretty accurate, when tested against the encyclopedia Britannia, Brittanica was correct 95% of the time and wiki 98%. Articles that are vandalised are locked at varying levels from no anonymous editing to only senior editors can touch it.
Alert a moderator
optimaximal
July 20th 2009
1. I learnt (the hard way) a few years ago at uni to never cite the Wikipedia.
I thought it was common knowledge (and/or common sense) now that you should never cite a source where some little git can run in, rename Hitler to ****ler and make a getaway with no repercussions.
Alert a moderator
Tell us what you think
You need to Log in or register to post comments