A nice surprise. This month's FirstMonday has an article and a book review of potential interest:
Thomas Chesney (Nottingham U) reports on An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility, with somewhat surprising results: "experts found Wikipedia’s articles to be more credible than the non–experts."
Also, in "How (Not) to Study the Attention Economy," Michael H Goldhaber (physicist, private consultant) critiques Richard A Lanham's (UCLA) "The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information." Goldhaber is "not exactly sympathetic" to Lanham's work: "I suspect both Lanham and Liu take far too shallow a look at how academia will probably shift if the new economy comes into being." Publisher's Weekly (via Amazon) is more gentle, commending Lanham on his "clear, jargon-free and forward-thinking" writing.
Would anyone else like to comment? Send us an email.