<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>
<H2 class=entry-title><SPAN class=921531403-16032007><FONT
size=2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=921531403-16032007>
<DIV class=entry-meta><SPAN class="entry-author author vcard"><FONT face=Arial
size=2><SPAN class=921531403-16032007>Here's the permanent link to the Salon
Article. Thanks to the Marmot's Hole (excerpt below).</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=entry-meta><SPAN class="entry-author author vcard"><FONT face=Arial
size=2><SPAN class=921531403-16032007>
<H2 class=entry-title><SPAN class=921531403-16032007><A
href="http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/03/14/history_wars/index.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/03/14/history_wars/index.html</FONT></A></SPAN></H2>
<H2 class=entry-title></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
class=921531403-16032007></SPAN> </H2>
<H2 class=entry-title><SPAN
class=921531403-16032007>**********************************</SPAN></H2></DIV></H2>
<H2 class=entry-title><A title="Permalink to The Great Goguryeo Wiki-War"
href="http://www.rjkoehler.com/2007/03/15/the-great-goguryeo-wiki-war/"
rel=bookmark>The Great Goguryeo Wiki-War</A></H2>
<DIV class=entry-date><ABBR class=published title=2007-03-15T10:43:56-0800>March
15, 2007 – 10:43 am</ABBR></DIV>
<DIV class=entry-content>
<P>Over at Salon, Andrew Leonard looks at the <A
href="http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/03/14/history_wars/index.html">Sino-Korean
Wiki-War over Goguryeo</A> [Salon.com]. Be sure to read it in its
entirety, but allow me to reprint the money shot:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>Critics of Wikipedia are wont to point a finger at amateur authorship as a
reason to distrust its veracity. Paradoxically, I find the lack of central
authority and profusion of multiple contradicting viewpoints to be a more
truthful reflection of “reality.” So what if an examination of the inner
workings of Wikipedia makes its editorial process seem chaotic and causes one
to distrust the product? That’s <I>a good thing</I>. All history should be
distrusted! It’s equally easy to mock the Chinese and Korean academics who are
playing games with Northeast Asian history in service of their own
nationalism, but I say <I>hurrah</I> to them as well: They’re just engaging in
an egregiously blatant display of what historians and reporters and bloggers
are doing everywhere, all the time. By allowing us to track editorial changes,
alter content ourselves, and participate in metalevel arguments, Wikipedia
gives us a window-seat view of how “knowledge” is fabricated. The more context
that is made available, the easier it is to make up our own
minds.</P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>Talk amongst yourselves.</P></DIV>
<DIV class=entry-meta><SPAN class="entry-author author vcard"><FONT face=Arial
size=2><SPAN
class=921531403-16032007></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>