Convictions, expectations, perfections, and verisimilitudes

So, basically what we've got is an issue of responsibilty. (At least it seems to me.) Instead of creating an uproar, Sheigenthaler could have attempted to change the false information himself. Yes, in a way it wasn't his responsibilty to change the wrong information, but did he really have the expectation that a major web site like Wikipedia to simply change info because it was wrong or he told it to? In today's world it almost seems to me that you need to try and protect your name as best as you're able. You can't always count on someone else to fix a problem or incorrect information.

And that leads me to the second quote of this bolg: "The first, and the most immediately absurd of these two defenses, is that since nothing at all can be trusted, er, "definitively", then Wikipedia can't be trusted either. This is curious, to say the least, as it points everyone's expectations firmly downwards." Now, I fully realize that you probably think me to an incourageable downer and pessimist after using this last quote. Well, not really. Everyone has a pessimist inside of them, but this blog really points out my own individual paranoia and insecurities than actual pessimism. I always try to look on the brightside things, I just attempt to plan for most everything that can go wrong. (And that's a major chore in and of itself sometimes!) But I degress.

Everything that you hear, read, write, watch, etc. has an angle attached to it. It may be as small as possible, but it was produced by someone and everyone has biases. Just mull over that for a bit and you might find a couple of your own. No one is infallible by any measure. Thus, nothing can be completely right or, perhaps, completely wrong. So, it's pretty easy to say that nothing can be definitively trusted. After all, as my professor, Dr. Jerz, likes to tell his newswriting classes, "If your mother says she loves you, verify it."