Because the wikipedia is used predominantly by geeks, and because anyone can edit any wikipedia entry, I'm a bit nervous that wikipedia entries might be more likely to be... well, biased. You don't have to look any further than the "Microsoft" entry to see this. If you look over the various sections, the biases of the authors and editors are fairly clear (and are not always the same). There is more subjective content and even opinion in wikipedia entries than there is in, say, the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
I never use the wikipedia unless someone else links me to it, and even then I don't trust what it says unless I can verify it elsewhere. Am I the only one?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not too troubled by it. In general, while there's a geek bias, it's not necessarily any more biased than a professionally edited encyclopedia.
Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
It bothers me. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
My own limited experience with Wikipedia is that none of the entries on topics about which I am knowledgeable have been inaccurate.
Edit: To be fair, I should also say that most of said entries have also been incomplete. Sometimes extremely so.
[ April 19, 2005, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Wikipedia is a good starting place.
Also, at least wikipedia pages tend to be obvious in their biases -- many traditional encyclopedias have biases that run as deep, and either hide them better or make bland entries which ignore the important issues in order to avoid them.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You get what you pay for?
Its a free service and there is no guarantee to authenticity and accuracy being absolute.
-Trevor
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
It bothered me at first, but it seems like people really care that the entries are accurate... I haven't used it that much, but I've liked what I've seen.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, wikipedia's interesting in that some of the central maintainers are quite conservative, while many of the more peripheral users are not, which helps balance a lot of the articles out.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:My own limited experience with Wikipedia is that none of the entries on topics about which I am knowledgeable have been inaccurate.
This is definitely not my experience. I've seen some flat-out incorrect stuff, including linked articles that more or less contradicted one another.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You can learn a lot by reading the history and discussion pages, especially on science topics.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Being "a good starting place" does not make wikipedia a real encyclopedia, which is what it bills itself as.
quote:In general, while there's a geek bias, it's not necessarily any more biased than a professionally edited encyclopedia.
I'm *almost* willing to shell out for a Britannica online subscription just to read the Microsoft entry and compare it with wikipedia's. After my next paycheque at the tail end of this month, I might even do it.
I'm a lot more comfortable with the idea of reading an encyclopedia entry written, vetted, and edited by, say, a group of historians than I am with the idea of reading an encyclopedia entry written by a bunch of geeks.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
You're not the only one, but it really depends what information you're dealing with. If it's scientific, so there's really not much you can be biased about, but I never trust biographies or information about historical controversial events.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm amazed at how accurate wikipedia has been considering the wiki aspect of it. It's not the best resource for controversial topics, but then again, neither are "real" encyclopedias. I don't know that I'd trust it implicitly without external confirmation, but they do a pretty good job.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Being 'a good starting place' does not make wikipedia a real encyclopedia, which is what it bills itself as."
See, I think it's already a real encyclopedia. It's certainly less biased than, for example, the encyclopedias of a hundred years ago.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Choosing one particular entry is hardly a way to compare encyclopedias. Consider the entry in a traditional encyclopedia on some period where historians have framed what limited information we have in rather different ways -- such as the late Roman Republic.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
twinky: also, there are a fair number of academics editing articles on wikipedia, including historians.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:This is definitely not my experience. I've seen some flat-out incorrect stuff, including linked articles that more or less contradicted one another.
I'm guessing that our areas of esoteric expertise don't overlap a whole bunch.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I think that wikipedia is a superb starting point if you know nothing about the subject.
I don't use it instead of real research, but I use it instead of google searches. For that, it is fabulous.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:It's certainly less biased than, for example, the encyclopedias of a hundred years ago.
That's pretty much a worthless comparison, though, and doesn't make wikipedia an encyclopedia.
quote:twinky: also, there are a fair number of academics editing articles on wikipedia, including historians.
But there is no formal editing process; anyone can post an edit or an article at any time without editing. I could post something blatantly false and it would be there until someone noticed and removed it. Anyone reading that false post in the interim is out of luck.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It never bothered me, but I almost always use the historical pages which are less open to bias unless they're written by a real psycho (which is of course possible). I use it to give me a basic overview of a subject or insight into a particular area of knowledge.
You can't trust anything political or modern to be without bias; visit any politics section of a library and you'll find that the truth is somewhere in a huge and wide mixture of opinions. Wikipedia is as biased as anywhere and terribly terribly useful!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The funny think is that I've never read a wikipedia article about something I'm an expert in. I know where real sources are for subjects I'm expert in.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:The funny think is that I've never read a wikipedia article about something I'm an expert in. I know where real sources are for subjects I'm expert in.
If I were interested in using the wikipedia on a regular basis, I would probably actually do this just to get a rough feel for how accurate the wikipedia is.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:I could post something blatantly false and it would be there until someone noticed and removed it. Anyone reading that false post in the interim is out of luck.
As long as you realize that, what's the problem?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:As long as you realize that, what's the problem?
The fact that it bills itself as a real encyclopedia.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
In my mind, "free internet encyclopedia" != "real encyclopedia".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"That's pretty much a worthless comparison, though, and doesn't make wikipedia an encyclopedia."
Why not? What makes the Encyclopedia Britannica -- hardly a book that's free of bias -- real? The fact that it used to cost money?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If I were interested in using the wikipedia on a regular basis, I would probably actually do this just to get a rough feel for how accurate the wikipedia is.
Unfortunately, there's probably little overlap in authors and editors across broad subject matter.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'd say this is probably one of the most biased sections of the Microsoft entry:
quote: Microsoft fosters a general attitude of long term strategic wariness in its managers, who are expected to be ready for any challenge from the competition or the market. In this frame of mind, being the largest software company in the world is not seen as a form of safety or a guarantee of future success; for instance, future competitors could rise from other industries, or computer hardware companies could try to become less dependent on Microsoft, or consumers could decide not to upgrade their software as often. Microsoft requires its managers to maintain vigilance and sustain a dynamic expansion in new markets.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
There are some problem spots on Wikipedia. Some users treat certain entries like their private fiefdoms. They dominate these entries not because of their expertise but simply because they have the time to "revert edit" all day long.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Almost make me want to start to edit from what I know, to see if the changes would last...!
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
Well what's wrong with it then? Because I don't see the problem. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, I think that what Twinky is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that first, how do we know that that particular section is true? If you read it as a biased source it seem to imply that Microsoft is so cruel to its employees because it does not want to lose its monopoly. If you read it as a NON biased source, it merely states that Microsoft likes to keep its employees from becoming complacent and therefore keep up with the market.
I'm thinking that the entry is biased against Microsoft, although I could be wrong- it could be written FOR Microsoft. Because I cannot tell I'm assuming it's either very clever or quite a subtle bias...
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Microsoft just got voted one of the best employers in the nation, in the top 10 of companies its size.
Hobbes Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
Isn't microsoft the company that gave out stock options to its employees? Didn't it create like 1000 microsoft millionaires?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
So, if this is the case and that information is FALSE, that would be an example of the bias that exists in Wikipedia.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Why not? What makes the Encyclopedia Britannica -- hardly a book that's free of bias -- real? The fact that it used to cost money?
The fact that there are rules about who gets to write what, and that submitted entries are reviewed and edited, unlike wikipedia. Jon Boy's link is very pertinent -- I think what's happening with Encarta is much more legitimate than what's happening with wikipedia, though I would prefer it if submissions were not anonymous.
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
Do you think Encarta will be unbiased toward Microsoft? After all Microsoft is Encarta's parent company.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think Encarta won't stoop to speculating about Microsoft's corporate strategy, and instead will largely stick to facts about Microsoft.
Edit: Also, I don't think Encarta's Microsoft entry will mention Linux.
[ April 19, 2005, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
My junior high English teacher told me that Encyclopedia articles don't count as research and that they were there to provide brief introductions to the subjects and give ideas for other places to look.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Indeed. But they should also not be false. You trust an encyclopedia to give you a good overview.
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
Hmmm.... I guess I've not as yet encountered a Wiki article that I've been able to recognize as being false. I really love the foreign language options they have; I use them all the time for terms and concepts that there aren't very good English equivalents for.
Honestly, I think Wikipedia is quite obviously a new sort of creature - it's not seeking to replace the Britannica, nor is it really competing. I don't think libraries are planning to replace the reference section with wiki terminals any time soon, and while formal research will always have its place, I really appreciate being able to have such a quick and thorough tool available from any location.
I suppose you could make an argument for the large numbers rule - something nobly democratic about the will of the masses and the triumph of truth over academic pedantry, but I wouldn't much rely on that for my argument. I'm interested in it from more of a convenience standpoint. If I wanted absolute Truth, I'd go talk to the Pope.
(just slightly )
[ April 19, 2005, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Susie Derkins ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
What bothers me is that it bills itself as an equivalent. And I'd say that it is competing with "traditional" encyclopedias, at least in a limited way.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I think you are getting too worked up because of how they bill themselves. What they really are and how they are percieved are much more important matters.
They aren't a real encyclopedia, and nobody views them as such. I don't see a problem.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:...and nobody views them as such.
Do you know that? If Joe Blow is Googling something, lands on a wikipedia entry, and sees "the free encyclopedia," do you think I'm being unreasonable to suggest that he might take the entry at face value?
There aren't any major caveats posted up-front on the wikipedia site. To me, it's basically false advertising.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I don't see why it should bother anyone just so long as you know better than to site it as a reputable source in your research of any particular topic. Just think of it as any other website. Just because it ends in "pedia" doesn't mean that it supposed to be treated as irrefutable fact.
I must say though, considering that it can be edited by anyone, I'm impressed that the entries which I've read are not only coherent, but fairly accurate. I haven't read very many entries though. I skimmed the one on OSC, and it seemed alright.
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
Well there are three schools of thought on this matter. We have the Britannica online model in which paid writers create all enteries. You have Encarta, where anyone can submit an article but there are paid editors. Then there's the Wikipedia model of everyone can edit or submit. The world will decide which model it likes.
[ April 19, 2005, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: urbanX ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
On Wikipedia's English homepage:
quote:Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
If Joe Blow is too lazy to find out more about his source of information, I think he deserves to be fooled. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:I don't see why it should bother anyone just so long as you know better than to site it as a reputable source in your research of any particular topic.
But most people don't know better. Heck, plenty of college professors have pretty pathetic citation skills.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
INDEED.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
That's the thing: anyone doing serious research (subject to serious analysis) should know to check the credentials of a source anyway, or else they risk making a fool of themself.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Does the Wiki stand for something? Like "What I Know Is" or something like that?
quote:If Joe Blow is Googling something, lands on a wikipedia entry, and sees "the free encyclopedia," do you think I'm being unreasonable to suggest that he might take the entry at face value?
I would say that it is unreasonable to accept at face value any site just because you got it by googling.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Maybe we can start a Hatrack Wiki to archive some of our most interesting debates?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
So would I, but we're smart. Not everybody is smart.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
But, neo-dragon, how many people are actually using Wikipedia as a source for real research? I'd guess the average user is just as Twinky described: Joe Blow out googling to find information on something. Wikipedia makes no real caveats about the reliability of their information, instead presenting themselves as some sort of egalitarian alternative to places like Brittanica and Encarta. It's simply misleading.
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
Here's a question. How many of you read blogs? Or listen to talk radio? Can you be sure the info from these sources are true?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:They aren't a real encyclopedia, and nobody views them as such.
Sure they are.
encyclopedia n. A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.
Nowhere in the standard definitions is reliability or inerrancy required. Implied, sure.
Is the Wikipedia subject to whims and bias? Certainly. But at least there's the option of change. What happened when the traditional encyclopedia had an incorrect fact and you had to wait another year or so for the next set to come out? At least here the possibility of peer review is immediate.
I don't assume everything -- or anything -- I read there is accurate. I tend to go there for suggestions and ideas I can independently verify elsewhere. But here's the thing: I do that with encyclopedias too. Not for everything, I'm reasonably sure that dates and such will be correct. But connections, motivations, trivia? I don't see a lot of difference, except that changes to the more traditional ones will be slower in arriving.
[ April 19, 2005, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Wikipedia certainly seems to be an encyclopedia. Just as someone could publish in hard copy a very biased encyclopedia, and many of the encyclopedia's nowadays are biased by virtue of omission (being far too short to include substantial information on almost anything).
That greater biases may exist in some cases is a price on pays for greater flexibility and coverage. Just as with any encyclopedia, the point is not to exhaust or to be definitive, but to initiate.
And it is both free as in beer and free as in speech, the two meanings of free I alluded to earlier.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:At least here the possibility of peer review is immediate.
But peer review relies on the assumption that the reviewers are experts in their field. There is no such assurance with Wikipedia. Also, the peer review process should come first, not after the content has already been edited.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:we're smart. Not everybody is smart.
You are going to lead a frustrating life if you are trying to make sure that people cannot act not smart. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But my point was that they are indeed an encyclopedia. Whether or not they are a reliable and trustworthy encyclopedia is a different matter.
[ April 19, 2005, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:But, neo-dragon, how many people are actually using Wikipedia as a source for real research? I'd guess the average user is just as Twinky described: Joe Blow out googling to find information on something. Wikipedia makes no real caveats about the reliability of their information, instead presenting themselves as some sort of egalitarian alternative to places like Brittanica and Encarta. It's simply misleading.
Then as I said, it's no worse than any other random site which pops up in a google search.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The Wikipedia is an egalitarian alternative to traditional encyclopedias, with all that egalitarianism implies.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Fine, wikipedia is a crappy encyclopedia.
And as to free as in speech and egalitarianism... well, *thpppppbt* is all I can really say to that. Those are talking points, not selling points. Selling points are things like accuracy.
Edit:
quote:Here's a question. How many of you read blogs? Or listen to talk radio? Can you be sure the info from these sources are true?
I don't read blogs, and I almost never listen to the radio. When I do, it's not talk radio, it's the CBC. For up-to-date information, I hit news.google.ca (from there, I read the story at the site(s) of my choice) and cbc.ca.
[ April 19, 2005, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I have used wikipedia as a source. If I was writing a literary article for instructional purposes I wouldn't consider it, but if I need to know the population of Luxembourg in a hurry? Wikipedia serves me well.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Another selling point is usefullness. I find wikipedia extremely useful.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its not "crappy", its complex and human.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It's only useful if it can be trusted.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Let me point out that I'm not trying to bash Wikipedia. For the most part, it is amazingly consistent and accurate, which is quite a feat when one factors in the whole "anyone can edit" thing.
But if I find an error and try to correct it, what's to guarantee that my edit will stay? What if someone undoes it five minutes later? I don't like that there are no controls and no real authority (at least that I can see) to appeal to. And I especially don't like the fact that source citations are exceedingly rare. Even when something is factual, you can't be sure.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Nonsense, twinky, there are extremely few, if any, sources which can be truly trusted. Yet there are large quantities of useful sources.
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
So, it comes down to: who do you trust more, large numbers of anonymous people writing for free, or small numbers of paid editors?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
But a lot of it can be trusted. One could even venture to say that most of it can be trusted. And if you're not looking for everything-relies-on-this facts but a list of, say, time keeping devices and explanations, wikipedia is very useful.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Jon Boy: yes, something that would have been nice in wikipedia is a better way of citing sources (a "footnote" feature built into the editing engine), which became adopted in the way of culture.
The reason it didn't/doesn't exist is because the wikipedia is based off of a primarily wiki engine which just happens to be used for an encyclopedia, and such a feature is less useful in those cases.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I didn't say "truly trusted." I said "trusted." As in, is it accurate enough that I'd be willing to rely on it as a quick reference? The problem with wikipedia is the one that Jon Boy points out in the post above yours.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:So, it comes down to: who do you trust more, large numbers of anonymous people writing for free, or small numbers of paid editors?
Depends on who's paying the editors, of course.
[ April 19, 2005, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: neo-dragon ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Trust the editors! Editors are the trustworthiest folks there are.
Teshi, the problem for me is that you can never know when you cross the line from reliable to unreliable. If I could check their sources or had the assurance that an expert was in charge, I wouldn't worry. But yes, I think that most of Wikipedia is reliable, especially for more well-established facts like the population of Luxembourg.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:It's only useful if it can be trusted.
I trust it enough for it to be useful in many situations.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, it is trustable enough as a quick reference, particularly if you find it high in the google results (another egalitarian method of achieving quality), because it is likely then both regularly edited and considered by many to be a good source on the subject.
At that point, assuming no significant controversy is obvious in the edit history, I would "trust" the facts mentioned about as far as I would trust a traditional encyclopedia: not very far, but something to work with.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:So, it comes down to: who do you trust more, large numbers of anonymous people writing for free, or small numbers of paid editors?
Small numbers of paid editors. Hands down. Every time.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: So, it comes down to: who do you trust more, large numbers of anonymous people writing for free, or small numbers of paid editors?
Exactly Annie. BTW, when is your landmark due.
Twinky, which do you think is more likely to have bias: a paper encyclopedia revised once a year (if that--most articles aren't revised every year) edited by a small group; or a continually edited open project, with thousands of contributers and a neutral point of view as an explict goal?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
You already answered me. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I believe I addressed that in the post directly above yours. I tend to trust the people who are trained to do something to do that specific something. Perhaps it has something to do with being in a discipline -- engineering -- whose name gets tossed around all the time outside of the scope where it is actually applicable.
Edit: At least in the case of, say, Linux, members of the contributing community have to have a measure of expertise in the area in which they wish to contribute. In the case of wikipedia, no expertise -- indeed, no knowledge, beyond how to use a computer and the internet -- is necessary.
[ April 19, 2005, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Think of it perhaps this way: you have a group of a dozen or so people, all brainstorming on a topic, bringing together what they know and think they know. This is a valuable resource, though it has no definitive "outcome" or "endpoint". The notion of a finished product is one that wikipedia rejects. Instead, wikipedia is a network of pages filled with constant brainstorming and back and forth -- which is valuable, just as a workgroup brainstorming is valuable. It is not a report from a meeting, and should not be judged in the same way.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's fair enough until you get to the "should not be judged in the same way" part. I'm not willing to go that far.
I also don't think that it's as good as "a report from a meeting," but I recognize this as my opinion.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: n the case of wikipedia, no expertise -- indeed, no knowledge, beyond how to use a computer and the internet -- is necessary.
This is true for each individual contribution or edit. But as a dynamic process, the articles get better and more accurate.
Besides, would the stuffy Britannica have an article about exploding whales , complete with photos and a Dave Berry reference?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:But as a dynamic process, the articles get better and more accurate.
And the people who used it as a reference early on, trusting it to be accurate, are out of luck. The least they could do is have a minimum number of contributors write about something before posting an article about it. That might help.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Fugu, I don't think the problem is with what Wikipedia is, but rather with what it makes itself out to be. Many uninformed users may assume that it is comparable to "real" encyclopedias in terms of accuracy, and therein lies the problem.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There will be some reports from meetings that will be better, but there will certainly be many that are worse -- meeting reports in many places tend towards a lowest common denominator nature. Similarly with traditional encyclopedia entries, often. Controversial issue? Avoid it all together and only have the bland aspects.
Wikipedia is a dynamic entity, and should be evaluated as such, and treated as such.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*shrug*
Encyclopedia has only meant "mostly inerrant source of knowledge" to the ignorant, as far as I can tell. Wikipedia (accurately) calling itself an encyclopedia should not be restricted by that ignorance.
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
quote:Exactly Annie. BTW, when is your landmark due.
I keep trying to write it in evenings and keep getting thwarted.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Many uninformed users may assume that it is comparable to "real" encyclopedias in terms of accuracy, and therein lies the problem.
But is that the user's problem or Wikipedia's problem? Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:in the case of wikipedia, no expertise -- indeed, no knowledge, beyond how to use a computer and the internet -- is necessary.
That's vastly overstating things. Wiki contributors are part of a community -- which is the whole point of a wiki. That community may not have the expertise that a small group of editors has [or in some cases it may have more]. But it does have some level of self-selection, self-policing, discourse parameters, editing standards, etc.
Wiki corrects some of the problems associated with publications run by a small group of editors. Of course, in turn it creates it's own set of problems.
This is like the whole "blogs" vs. "mainstream journalism" thing. Blogs can act as a corrective to the MSM as well as providing interesting commentary and specialized expertise. They are nimble and polyphonic. The MSM provides newsgathering and writing and editing expertise as well as (in many cases) some sense of professional standards. It tends to be slow and monophonic.
It's a complementary relationship even when it is adverserial and/or filled with contempt.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:And the people who used it as a reference early on, trusting it to be accurate, are out of luck.
Yup. So are those people that bought shares of the Golden Gate Bridge.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Jon Boy, let the uninformed take care of themselves. People that don't take EVERYTHING they read on the internet with a grain of salt are beyond help. And the 3 major paid online encyclopedias don't hold themselves to 100% accuracy either.
[ April 19, 2005, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
It's a matter of just how much are you depending on the information to be accurate?
Based on your need for veracity, you either use a more reliable source or you don't.
With respect to high school history professors, you might be able to wing the poor-man's encyclopedia. But you can't blame anyone but yourself if you get an F on your weekly report.
However, if you do your Doctoral Thesis research based on the poor man's encyclopedia, then Megan is going to laugh at you. A lot.
-Trevor
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Good comparison between blogs and wikis, Zal. A few minutes ago, I saw on wiki where the two forms have been merged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliki Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I trust wikipedia, generally, as much as I trust an Encyclopedia Brittanica from 10 years ago. With certain exceptions it is still useful to me, as long as I double check facts that may now be inaccurate. In some situations -- especially up-to-the-minute items -- I prefer Wikipedia.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Let met say that I am a big fan of Wikipedia. It is a great source of knowledge, and it often goes into much more depth and breadth than a regular encyclopedia.
But as an editor, I cringe at the thought that any idiot can "publish" their knowledge without having to go through a real peer review and editing process first.
What if I had the power to make changes in every single copy of Encyclopaedia Brittanica around the world? What if I went into everybody's homes and tore out pages, crossed out parts I didn't like, and inserted my own stuff? You can essentially do that on Wikipedia. The fact that there are people (who are not necessarily experts themselves) there to check your work and fix it doesn't change that.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:But is that the user's problem or Wikipedia's problem?
I think it's both. If you're going to bill yourself as a source of information, it behooves you to ensure the information you supply is as accurate as possible.
I don't believe in "caveat emptor" as an excuse for corporate misdeeds, either.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I don't think we should be required to protect the stupid from themselves either.
Well, I draw the line at following them around with first aid kits and emergency equipment.
-Trevor
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
No, and if someone believes in, say, the Time Cube, they'll get no sympathy from me. But if someone trusts a wikipedia entry that is factually incorrect, I think a significant portion of the blame (though not, obviously, all) rests on wikipedia.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:What if I went into everybody's homes and tore out pages, crossed out parts I didn't like, and inserted my own stuff? You can essentially do that on Wikipedia.
No you can't -- at least not the tearing out part. Even though the page is edited, you can go and see how it was edited.
[ April 19, 2005, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Portabello ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Yeah, but you can still see the torn-out pages that I've strewn all over your floor. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I think it is now time to resort to name-calling.
JB, you're just being a snob.
edit: Twinky, I'll throw you in that pot for good measure.
[ April 19, 2005, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Portabello ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
No, I'm just being difficult. There's a difference.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
OK, it was wrong to say that you were just being a snob.
You a difficult AND a snob.
evidence:
quote:But as an editor, I cringe at the thought that any idiot can "publish" their knowledge without having to go through a real peer review and editing process first.
[ April 19, 2005, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Portabello ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:I think it's both. If you're going to bill yourself as a source of information...
You would be right, if Wikipedia bill itself as a community of experts. But it doesn't. It clearly states that it is a community project that can be edited by anyone.
quote:it behooves you to ensure the information you supply is as accurate as possible.
With what, their vast monetary resources acquried via their paid subscriptions to their service?
quote:I don't believe in "caveat emptor" as an excuse for corporate misdeeds, either.
Unlike corporations, Wikipedia is not selling anything. And unlike corporations, Wikipedia's editing process is completely transparent. Anyone can check which portion of the text is edited, who edited it, and the editing history of a particular editor.
[ April 19, 2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Not really. Twinky is demanding (I think) that someone who publicly claims to be an encyclopedia on par with the Brittanica has a responsibility to be as accurate as possible. Fair enough.
I even agree. But I think that the post above on blogs and journalism points out exactly how useful Wikipedia can be.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:OK, it was wrong to say that you were just being a snob.
You a difficult AND a snob.
I like my facts to be checked first. So sue me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oddly, I was always told that an encyclopedia, by its very definition, was not considered a primary source and could not be used as a scholarly cite.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Basically, I'd want to see some a priori editing of wikipedia entries before I'd be willing to trust it as a source of information.
Edit: "Of," not "to."
[ April 19, 2005, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
How is that odd, Tom? That sounds right to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Basically, I'd want to see some a priori editing of wikipedia entries before I'd be willing to trust it as a source of information."
Why? You link to blogs, and there's even less accountability there.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I use wickipedia for things that can't be found in regular sources.
For instance: What about that situation in the Middle East? NOT a question for Wickipedia.
What the heck does "All your base are belong to us." mean? A question positively DESIGNED for Wickipedia.
What were the effects of Vatican II? No Wickipedia.
Where did that video with the kid and the song and the arm waving come from? Yes Wickipedia.
It works really well that way.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Why? You link to blogs, and there's even less accountability there.
No, I don't. I also don't read blogs, apart from (sporadically) a couple of friends' livejournals.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Oddly, I was always told that an encyclopedia, by its very definition, was not considered a primary source and could not be used as a scholarly cite.
I think there is an illusion that a "primary source" exists. Take any event that happened. Do you include witness testimony to that event? How long ago had the event happened when the witness was interviewed, and how has time passing altered and skewed that witness' memory of what has happened? Memories are very fallible.
Now let's look at something a little more solid, like population (as was suggested earlier in this thread). When dealing with small populations, we can be fairly accurate about the number of people and even their names, although some hermits may be hiding in the hills. As the population gets larger, the quantity of errors (i.e. the uncounted population) grows, although the percentage of loss may seem reasonable to us. We grow accustomed to the fact that these things are not exact and accept the errors. We may even estimate the amount, based on the amount of error we expect to receive from our data.
Video is about the closest thing we have to a primary source. But even that is limited by viewpoint, clarity of input (sound, visual) and subject matter (i.e.what you happen to have video of). We'd need something like OSC's pastwatch technology to have a true primary source.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*is highly amused by kat's spelling of wikipedia*
*wonders if it is Freudian*
Posted by Desdemona (Member # 7100) on :
Encyclopaedia Britannica Online article on Microsoft:
quote: Microsoft Corporation
Encyclopædia Britannica
leading developer of personal-computer software systems and applications. The company also publishes books and multimedia titles and offers electronic mail services. It has sales offices throughout the world but does virtually all of its research and development at its corporate headquarters in Redmond, Washington, U.S.
In 1975 Bill Gates and Paul G. Allen, two boyhood friends from Seattle, converted BASIC, a popular mainframe programming language, for use on an early personal computer (PC), the Altair. Shortly afterward Gates and Allen founded Microsoft, deriving the name from the words “microcomputer” and “software.” During the next few years they refined BASIC and developed other programming languages. In 1980 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) asked Microsoft to produce the essential software, or operating system, for its first personal computer, the IBM PC. Microsoft purchased an operating system from another company, modified it, and renamed it MS-DOS (Microsoft Disk Operating System). MS-DOS was released with the IBM PC in 1981. Thereafter, most manufacturers of personal computers licensed MS-DOS as their operating system, generating vast revenues for Microsoft; by the early 1990s it had sold more than 100 million copies of the program and defeated rival operating systems such as CP/M, which it displaced in the early 1980s, and later OS/2. Microsoft deepened its position in operating systems with its Windows graphical command program, whose third version, released in 1990, gained a wide following. By 1993, Windows 3.0 and its subsequent versions were selling at a rate of one million copies per month, and nearly 90 percent of the world's PCs ran on a Microsoft operating system. In 1995 the company released Windows 95, which for the first time fully integrated MS-DOS with Windows and effectively matched in ease of use Apple Computer's Macintosh OS. It also became the leader in productivity software such as word-processing and spreadsheet programs, outdistancing long-time rivals Lotus and WordPerfect in the process
Microsoft dramatically expanded its electronic publishing division, created in 1985 and already notable for the success of its multimedia encyclopedia, Encarta. It also entered the information services and entertainment industries with a wide range of products and services, most notably the Microsoft Network and MSNBC (a joint venture with the National Broadcasting Company, a major American television network).
As a result, by the mid-1990s Microsoft, which became a publicly owned corporation in 1986, had become one of the most powerful and profitable companies in American history. It consistently earned profits of 25 cents on every sales dollar, an astonishing record; net income topped $2.1 billion in the company's fiscal year ending June 30, 1996. However, its rapid growth in a fiercely competitive and fast-changing industry spawned resentment and jealousy among rivals, some of whom complained that the company's practices violated U.S. laws against unfair competition. Microsoft and its defenders countered that, far from stifling competition and technical innovation, its rise had encouraged both and that its software had consistently become less expensive and more useful. A U.S. Justice Department investigation concluded in 1994 with a settlement in which Microsoft changed some sales practices that the government contended enabled the company to unfairly discourage OS customers from trying alternative programs. The following year, the Justice Department successfully challenged Microsoft's proposed purchase of Intuit, the leading maker of financial software for the PC.
Partly because of its stunning success in PC software, Microsoft was slow to realize the commercial possibilities of network systems and the Internet. In 1993 it released Windows NT, a landmark program that tied disparate PCs together and offered improved reliability and network security. Sales were initially disappointing, but by 1996 Windows NT was hailed as the likely standard for PC networking, challenging Novell's NetWare. Microsoft did not move into Internet software until a new venture, Netscape Communications Corp., had introduced Navigator, a Web “browser” program that simplified the once-arcane process of navigating the World Wide Web. In a violent change of course, Microsoft quickly developed its own browser, Internet Explorer, made it free, and moved aggressively to persuade computer makers and Internet service providers to distribute it exclusively. By 1996 Microsoft was bundling Explorer with Windows OS and had begun the process of integrating Explorer directly into Windows. In response, Netscape accused Microsoft of violating its 1995 consent decree and sued; these efforts helped to persuade the U.S. Department of Justice to reopen a broad investigation of Microsoft.
In 1999, following a trial that lasted 30 months, a judge found Microsoft in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and ordered the breakup of the company. In 2001 an appeals court overturned the breakup order but still found the company guilty of illegally trying to maintain a monopoly.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: I think there is an illusion that a "primary source" exists. . . . We'd need something like OSC's pastwatch technology to have a true primary source.
Well, for a history paper, yes. But if your research paper is on, say, the work of a particular philosopher or scientist, then reading something actually written by that person is a primary source. Or for a paper on 4th century literature, then any literature actually written in that century is a primary source.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote: Well, for a history paper, yes. But if your research paper is on, say, the work of a particular philosopher or scientist, then reading something actually written by that person is a primary source. Or for a paper on 4th century literature, then any literature actually written in that century is a primary source.
I would agree with the literature point, but not with the work of the philosopher/scientist. You're assuming that the writing of the philosopher/scientist accurately reflects their work. Really, they could be working on something that they don't fully comprehend and their work might only be fully understood in a historical context. And people lie, exaggerate and censor themselves. Their actual work would be a primary source, but not their writing about it.
Either way, your point is definitely made and there are such things as primary sources for non-historical work. Thanks. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The Britannica MS entry is an interesting contrast to the wikipedia entry.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:a real peer review and editing process
You mean the real peer review system that is breaking down and in many cases may have not been that much of a safeguard in the first place.
This is not to say that I want to do away with peer review and editing --- in fact, it's a critical part of what I do [albeit not on the same level as an academic paper].
Indeed, what would be awesome would be a wikipedia that through some sort of authentication process and/or through an aggressive, seriously self-policing community managed to have all of its contributors be people who really knew their stuff -- academics, grad students, freelance scholars, working professionals, etc.
What I envision is mini-subject-based wikipedias that had some barriers to entry for contributors that are part of a collective of affilliated wikis that share the same standards but are on different subject areas.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Anybody else notice today's Foxtrot? Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
bwahahahaha!!!!! It's been so long since I followed Foxtrot. Looks like the kids haven't aged a bit.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Hehe, I love Foxtrot, I can't wait to see what else he does with this line of thinking.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)