:: ::

A thoughtful commentary a year ago by George Johnson in the New York Times titled – “The Nitpicking of the Masses vs. the Authority of the Experts”, discusses the authors newfound reliance on the “mercurial upstart called Wikipedia” versus the “old and steadfast” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Johnson stated - 

“The idea that perfection can be achieved solely through deliberate effort and centralized control has been given the lie.…”

The gist of the article is that the “centralized control” by those with knowledge in this case the Encyclopaedia Britannica isn’t necessarily that much better than the decentralized Wikipedia and some case left wanting because it can’t be as up to date.

The differences in the two sources, is really the difference from the two encyclopedias origins. Johnson comments – “The question is whether to trust an encyclopedia that evolves like an organism or one that was designed like a machine.”

Wikipedia is a living creature due to constant updating by dedicated “inexpert Wikipedians” as he calls them. These are individuals who are ‘for truth, justice and the American way’ I might add due to their not being bought and paid for by ‘vested interests’ as I’ve discussed previously. They are of the Internet Age and reflect the new found freedom from authoritarian dogma of the past a la Encyclopaedia Britannica. He finds himself relying on both.

“Wikipedia’s rough-edged entries on science are often more detailed and current than the ones in Britannica….”
He goes on – “It seems natural that over time, thousands, then millions of inexpert Wikipedians - even with an occasional saboteur in their midst - can produce a better product than a far smaller number of isolated experts ever could.”

This is borne out by the study that he comments on from Nature. Which “…showed that the decision is far from clear-cut. Calling on experts to compare 42 competing entries, the journal counted an average of four errors per article in Wikipedia - and three in Britannica. That is not much of a difference, and a look at the details only adds to the anxiety. A fact is surely a fact, but what constitutes an error can be as hard to pin down as a bead of mercury.”

As far as trust goes, he states - “Whatever their shortcomings, neither encyclopedia appears to be as error-prone as one might have inferred from Nature, and if Britannica has an edge in accuracy, Wikipedia seems bound to catch up.”

Old and Steadfast Medicine vs. Mercurial Upstart Alternative Medicine
So-called Conventional Medicine and its “old and steadfast” ways of “centralized” information that only the experts posses (so you must listen to them about what’s best for your health); is coming to an end. This is because “mercurial upstart” Alternative Medicine websites with its “inexperts” are providing better more up-to-date information that is relevant to peoples chronic ill-health conditions. They are not bought and paid for by the vested interests.

Wikipedia was listed in the top ten for terms searched in Google for 2006. Ironically, Johnson concludes – “Meanwhile the competition has some catching up to do. While Wikipedia includes a good, balanced article on the history of Britannica, Britannica has not a word to say about Wikipedia, as it rapidly becomes one of the most significant phenomena on the Net”

Britannica has at least taken the high road of not saying anything about Wikidupedia unlike the self-appointed pontificating critics of Alternative Medicine. Groups like Quackwatch and various Skeptics, use attack techniques rather than rational dialogue. I’ll address their modus operandi in the future.

Many of us feel like Mr. Johnson because we need to rely on both the ‘Old and Steadfast Medicine and the Mercurial Upstart Alternative Medicine’. They both have a place. You need more than a few herbs if you have an emergency or need surgery. Look for more information at this site to help you look at both medicines, objectively.

As Alternative Medicine also “rapidly becomes one of the most significant phenomena on the Net”, to borrow a line from Johnsons article; and as you know - You Can’t Put The Genie Back In The Bottle.