I don't know where to post comments on things that OSC said in his columns, here or in the other forum? Am I talking about OSC or am I discussing books or whatever?
Anyway, I enjoyed the most recent column, but I wonder about Uncle Orson's opinion of Wikipedia. I was under the impression that when it came to the sorts of entries that might be addressed by a more traditional encycleopaedia that Wikipedia's accuracy was at least as good as the others. Haven't repeated studies all said that? It is only on the relatively minor topics, like the life history of everybody's favorite speculative fiction author and essayist, that things get dicey. Or am I wrong? As usual.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.
In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.
That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
quote:Originally posted by boriquajake: It is only on the relatively minor topics, like the life history of everybody's favorite speculative fiction author and essayist, that things get dicey. Or am I wrong? As usual.
Issac Asimov? Kim Stanley Robinson? David Brin?
Posted by Frecklefoot (Member # 11692) on :
The last thing I've seen Card post about Wikipedia is this blog entry. I understand Card's frustration with getting his corrections reverted, but all he needs to provide is a verifiable reference. That could be a magazine article, a book or even a webpage on his site (but not a post from this forum). If he provides that, his edits will remain.
FWIW...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Had Card's article about his attempt to change his Wikipedia entry included the specifics of the changes, could he have cited that article in his next attempt? Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:For instance, wikipedia's stuff about me is laughably inaccurate. And when I tried to correct it -- not change the opinions inserted by people who dislike my religion or my politics, but just correct simple facts about my life and work, like dates and places and names -- all my changes were immediately erased and the errors were put back.
This is the most super helpful advice I can offer anyone who feels misrepresented by their wikipedia page.
'opinions inserted by people who dislike my religion or my politics' is a violation of NPOV. This is a core principle and standard that Wikipedia lives by. It is central to Wikipedia. Violation of NPOV is one of the easier things to clear by a person taking umbrage to how he or she is represented on their Wikipedia page.
If these referenced 'opinions' have survived challenge under NPOV, the issue is different than what he says it is, and yet he maintains two options: clarify, or retract, his statements used in Wikipedia analysis. If he does neither, then quotation of him will stand as a primary resource indicating his views and character.
See: Premarital Sex and Homosexuality sections.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.
In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.
That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.
Devil's advocate: it's likely that the researchers would become aware of the tone and style adopted by the Britannica, which is less likely to contain an inconsistent voice. Given the hierarchical editorial process, the Britannica will be organized in a recognizably singular way. Wikipedia articles, on the other hand, are often written in an inconsistent voice with inconsistent lexical and dialectical variations. It's likely therefore that the inconsistent language of a wikipedia article would lead to an observer bias, giving it the perception of a lack of credibility.
As an aside, I believe that the inconsistency of voice and tone in wikipedia articles is enough to discredit them somewhat. However, I also realize that the perception of their quality would lead an "expert" in any given field to eye the article with greater factual scrutiny.
For instance, the great Grove Dictionary of Music is constructed in article format, in which topics are edited by a single musicologist. So, the article on Guitar would be the work of a number of researchers with a master editor who actually writes the thing (ostensibly). The Grove will contain much of the same info as wikipedia on Guitar, but it will be written by a musicologist, with a musicology worldview. Musicologists always tie their studies to sociological and historical studies, and wikipedia doesn't have room for this most of the time.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: I understand Card's frustration with getting his corrections reverted, but all he needs to provide is a verifiable reference.
How do you verify where you went to primary school? Are they going to interview his mom? It just seems silly to demand a verifiable source for information that anyone doing the interview is going to ask him about in the first place.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
When most long articles have at least two or more "provide source" notations and some shorter are nothing but, credibility is laughable. The articles are better than they have been, but I still double check with other sources or remain suspicious with the info I can't back up. A good Encyclopedia can stand on its own.
Posted by boriquajake (Member # 6410) on :
quote:Devil's advocate: it's likely that the researchers would become aware of the tone and style adopted by the Britannica, which is less likely to contain an inconsistent voice. Given the hierarchical editorial process, the Britannica will be organized in a recognizably singular way. Wikipedia articles, on the other hand, are often written in an inconsistent voice with inconsistent lexical and dialectical variations. It's likely therefore that the inconsistent language of a wikipedia article would lead to an observer bias, giving it the perception of a lack of credibility.
As an aside, I believe that the inconsistency of voice and tone in wikipedia articles is enough to discredit them somewhat. However, I also realize that the perception of their quality would lead an "expert" in any given field to eye the article with greater factual scrutiny.
I absolutely agree. Sometimes the "cut and pasted" feel of Wikipedia articles distracts from their credibility just because one never knows why the different authors differed. Is there some factual disagreement that we don't know about? I sometimes wonder if what I am reading replaced something that was more accurate. This is especially bothersome when reading something, say, on musicology. There is such a small community of "experts" and their disagreements are so arcane, often political, and yet passionately felt so reading the articles can sometimes feel like overhearing a religious argument. For some reason I tend to feel more comfortable with articles on hard sciences and more mainstream topics.
And yes I know it appears that I am contradicting my earlier position, it is just that I pretty much rely on Wikipedia for all my information these days and so I have to take it on faith that it is reliable but I have inner doubts and insecurities.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: A good Encyclopedia can stand on its own.
Nonsense. Surely you were taught never to use an encyclopedia as a primary source?
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: A good Encyclopedia can stand on its own.
Nonsense. Surely you were taught never to use an encyclopedia as a primary source?
Agrees with rivka. Again.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Surely you were taught never to use an encyclopedia as a primary source?"
As a primary source? No, of course not. Then again, I think that my understanding of "primary source" is a bit different than what you probably mean which is main source. Also, I think you are talking about academia and not personal information. As a reliable source? You bet.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Achilles:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: A good Encyclopedia can stand on its own.
Nonsense. Surely you were taught never to use an encyclopedia as a primary source?
Agrees with rivka. Again.
Why the angst? I agree with rivka often. She smart.
I know I use wikipedia sometimes for looking up technical information on cars and occasionally find technical errors. Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
(We often agree. But that's just not as funny.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(Yep. I don't even bother to mark it on the calendar or anything.)
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
(Should I e-mail you an invitation on that event?)
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
OSC, I have a twenty-year-old World Book set myself, and it's still on my bookshelf! I flip through it for fun almost every day. If nothing else, it's a snapshot of late-1980s general knowledge.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)