Slashdot Mirror
Ex-Britannica Editor Reviews Wikipedia
0-9a-f writes "Robert McHenry, one-time Editor in Chief of Encyclopædia Britannica, offers his thoughts on Wikipedia at Tech Central Station. While many Wikipedia zealots might discount his obvious bias outright, his broad argument is difficult to ignore. A million monkeys might eventually write Shakespeare, but how would they recognise it once they had?"
While many Wikipedia zealots might discount his obvious bias outright
Wikipedia is the most biased "reference" source out there. The Karl Rove ariticle basically made him out to be a reincarnated Goebbels. The problem of course is any editor with an agenda can ruin an article.
But he also points out that the article was, if not good, better in its first version than now, so the editing obviously work both ways...
Martin
Let's hope you're not citing it in your research paper.
Little Bricklets
There is clearly a means to resolve these inconsistencies in that particular article! Edit it!!
Yes, but edit it in which direction? By "... that the reader has no means to resolve", he means that the reader has no way to determine which number is correct -- the article is internally inconsistent, and it doesn't even have the necessary references for a reader to probe further.
Sure, you can make the article self-consistent easily enough; but most readers would have a 50% chance of making the article consistently wrong, which doesn't help anyone.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
If the "monkeys" decide they like what they wrote, that's good
But the problem is that more often than not the monkey's opinion of the truth or fact isn't in fact necessarily congruent with the truth or fact.
Popular isn't necessarily correct or incorrect. It's just popular. You can have a dozen wikipedians arguing back and forth on a topic but at the end of the day the socratic or arugmentative process doesn't guarantee a solid article.
The word "bias" gets tossed around a little too much in American discourse these days. How, pray tell, might we honestly construe this man as biased?
It isn't "biased" to be educated or to have the experience necessary to provide a thoughtful and determinative analysis.
Indeed, this man's entire lifetime has been dedicated to editing a series of books whose entire modus operendi is to present information factually and to be explicitly aware of their own limitations. An encyclopaedia is by defination a reference work, a limited collection of reliable information that leads you to further study. That is the opposite of "biased", which is to present self-serving conclusions based on a self-serving assemblage of information.
One thing many Western societies lack right now (but, I would offer, America in particular), is widely accepted basis for producing legitimate knowledge. There are serious concerns with the Wikipedia as a source of authoritative information that exacerbate this problem, not address it.
I welcome this man's comments rather than condemn them.
"If the 'monkeys' decide they like what they wrote, that's good enough -- it doesn't have to be Shakespeare."
Your sole standard is whether you "like" what's written?! It appears that truth no longer matters in your bottom-up society.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
The author says there are "no means to resolve" but I beg to differ. There is clearly a means to resolve these inconsistencies in that particular article! Edit it!!
He meant that the reader has no way to resolve the information presented to him, and he's right.
People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
This has nothing to do with elites and top down society. The point of the article is that Wikipedia may not be the ultimate encyclopedia as some of its boosters may proclaim.
To address your point, you're saying that tyranny of mediocrity is acceptable and in fact desireable? In your world, there is no reason for people to aspire to higher knowledge and enlightenment?
Self awareness - try it!
The author says there are "no means to resolve" but I beg to differ. There is clearly a means to resolve these inconsistencies in that particular article! Edit it!! If he has found something wrong with the article, he should take a few minutes and correct it. Enough of that, and the article will go into dispute and moderators will resolve it. If this author is interested in Alexander Hamilton, he should watch that thread unfold using the Wikipedia tools to stay on top of it, making changes as he goes.
... or does it exist simply for people to edit it, giving writers some sort of vague satisfaction that their contribution has been accepted?
That begs the question: Does the Wikipedia exist to provide reference information for visitors
If I need some reliable information about Alexander Hamilton, I hope it's the former.
The author of the article quotes the apparent goals of the Wikipedia - one of which is to be reliable.
... but if I can see there is an internal contradiction, but don't know how to resolve it - what am I to do? Wait? Look it up in the Encyclopedia Britannica and then add it in to the Wikipedia?
I can RELY on a real work of reference. Wikipedia is useful, I use it all the time, but I don't treat it like an encyclopedia, more a "hitch hiker's guide to the galaxy". A place to start, but not to trust.
Find Japanese addresses in English on Google Maps Japan: http://diddlefinger.com/
And yet, as pointed out in the article, the trend is not toward improvement - it's toward mediocrity.
Understandable. For anyone to be examined on knowledge the source should be verified as "correct", at least in terms of what can be tested (like school tests).
However, the process of learning should be a continuous one. There's not much point in treating Wikipedia, or any encyclopoedia, as the final word in knowledge. One could refer someone to Wikipedia and say to them that they could take that as a starting point, then branch outwards and find out more about it.
Being able to take multiple sources, evaluate them all, then form your own opinions is more valuable than just reading something in one place once. That's only my opinion though, and it is always horses for courses.
Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules.
The problem does not arise when you look up things you know about. It arises when you look up things you don't know about, which is the raison d'etre of an encyclopedia.
Yes, he's in the encylopedia business, but then the Britannica is well noted for knowing its business. Wikis still have some trouble along that score, they haven't entirely figured out what encyclopedia means.
KFG
In other words, a hundred ill-informed opinions are still worse than one well-informed one. And simply having more people contributing to a piece of work does not necessarily make it better.
Looking for political forums? Check out "The World Forum".
The Linux comparison is completely bogus, in my opinion. Not only are there gatekeepers - as you point out, but the quality of the finished code is instantly measurable by the end user, with no expert knowledge. Does it boot? does it work? does it crash when I click this?
Unfortunately, an encyclopedia's failure mechanism is much more insidious and hard to detect.
The correct direction after researching their findings!
Oh, you mean after going to a known reputable source of information...This isn't meant as flamebait, but doesn't that right there nullify the point of going to Wikipedia as a source?
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
In that case the correct edit would be one that acknowledges the uncertainty regarding the year. (That seems obvious to me.)
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
One of the most annoying things I find about Slashdot is the immediate reflexive response to regard an article as either 'for' or 'against' issue X. As soon as I saw that an old Brittanica writer had commented on Wikipedia I could guess the shape of the Slashdot debate, without even knowing what the Brittanica fellow had said.
I have read his comments, and as a not insignificant Wikipedia contributor, I have to say they're correct: he gets it. He does not regard Wikipedia as a useless adventure, but he does not trust (have ) that the collaborative process will necessarily produce excellent-quality articles.
I have to say I agree. I admire the idea that quality is a sought-after goal, but such efforts as the Collaboration of the Week succeed only because Wikipedians focus their attentions on a given article closely for a short period of time.
I have seen too many articles that are confusing and disorganized at a meta-level. A simple factual error invites itself to be corrected, and therefore will be corrected, but restructuring a whole article when you know someone may come along and violate your scheme tomorrow is a discouraging thing.
As well, too many articles on controversial subjects end up being a confusing mismash of argument against or for the point in question. This is particularly the case for recent controversial political figures. I'm happy all the information is there, but I will not believe that the collaborative process will naturally produce an article that covers the issue fairly.
I view the Wikipedia as analogous to a probabalistic algorithm in computer science (e.g. a probabalistic primality testing algorithm). Such an algorithm is true most of the time, and can be a hell of a lot faster than the always-true deterministic algorithm.
Those who criticize the algorithm's potential for falseness miss the fact that its nondeterminism gives it great power, but its proponents should never forget that it is not deterministic.
You totally miss his point. He checked an article which he knew was likely to have a problem based on his experience with Britannica. And indeed found that Wikipedia had a problem. His point was that the millions (well eventually maybe) of junior high students going to wiki as an authoritative source for their school reports would have no way of knowing the article is wrong. In addition, how many other countless articles, that he doesn't know anything about and hasn't checked, are also wrong.
If Mr. McHenry's problems with wikipedia was just that this one article has an error, you would be correct, however, he is pointing out that the problem is endemic to the literature form, and that without a staff responsible for researching and verifying the accuracy of all of the articles, and held accountable for that accuracy, there is no way that wikipedia should ever be used as an authoritative source for formal research.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
IMO, the real issue is that we're applying Open-Source principles to something where they won't really work. In his point 3, he mentions the unspecified quasi-darwinnian process that will eventually even out the kinks, and give you a decent article. Now the thing is, in software you have a goal to work towards. Person A writes the code, and forgets to plug a security hole. Persons B-E discover it, and then everybody revises it, but you have a TANGIBLE goal to work towards. When do you feel that a wikipedia article has accurately covered the facts? When it's acceptable "to most people with loud voices and active wikipedia accounts" would be my guess. Yes you get this same problem with regular encyclopedias, but then that's my point. Wikipedia is no better than them, and as has been stated, could possibly be worse. At least with the regular bunch of encyclopedias you have one authority to go to with all your gripes - you don't just scribble on the page, and let another bunch of eyeballs re-write it. I like wikipedia, but is it ever going to be a good reference source? Doubtful. Even 200 years from now. Not all arguements have resolutions. Human beings don't always reach a compromise (except in Star Trek, and Soviet Russia, I suppose). A parent poster said that eventually, the kinks will be ironed out. But I doubt it. I foresee a lot MORE protected pages, as more and more people get net access and feel that a wikipedia article does not coincide with their point of view....Even in a democracy, we elect leaders to represent us. But if every fool had a say in legislation, it'd be a wonder if ANY law was ever passed.
My Favourite Meme
there is no way that wikipedia should ever be used as an authoritative source for formal research.
Replace "wikipedia" with "any single source, professionally edited or not".
Everyone makes mistakes. Britannica makes fewer mistakes, but the mistakes they do make last for an entire year (or longer, for people who don't buy the new set every year). Wikipedia makes more mistakes, but they are corrected as soon as they are uncovered.
It's just two different sides of the coin. Considering the cross referencing capabilities you have online compared to a printed encyclopedia, I prefer wikipedia + google.
Who uses an encyclopedia as an authoritative source anyway?
"So, how'd you research your thesis?"
"I looked up 'nanotechnology' in the encyclopedia."
Encyclopedias, printed or online, are meant as primers, or starting points. Not as a source for research.
$8.95/mo web hosting
What I like about your post is that you acknowledge that there are problems with the way the wikipedia works, and that this does not make it useless. This is important.
People get so attached to their pet projects sometimes that everything becomes all-or-nothing. If someone critically evaluates one aspect of the project, it's treated as an attack on the whole project-- as a statement that "this project should be trashed"-- and the evaluation is dismissed. This reaction is not productive.
I think the Wikipedia is a great thing, but I also think that this reveiwer's concerns are valid. For all of what it does well, the Wikipedia still has some weaknesses, which should either be addressed (i.e. fixed), or else we should all recognize and live with a certain amount of uncertainty of the reliability of the information you get.
I have a ready guide to test music encyclopedias in the same way. Turn to the entry for Frank Zappa. If it says his given name is "Francis Vincent Zappa", throw it away, because it's badly researched...
It's flat out wrong, and it tells you that whoever researched this article didn't even bother to read Zappa's autobiography ("The Real Frank Zappa Book"). He was christened Frank, and always has been called Frank. Here's the preamble to wikipedia's article Here's Britannica's Wikipedia has many flaws. It may often be wrong on subtle issues, like the one raised by the Britannica editor. His mistake is to assume that the same is not true of his own estimable organ.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
In brief, at the end of the day after 100+ edits, the Alexander Hamilton piece is NOT a rich tapestry of nuance and expertise. It's a high-school quality wallpaper job.
The author has proposed mechanism as to why such articles are, in effect, wallpaper jobs and does, in my opinion, a good bit to evidence the "emperor has no clothes" nature of those such as yourself who have a faith-based view of collaboration - the well meaning, but certainly not proven and possibly quite wrong idea that groups of humans "quasi Darwinially" converge upon optimal solutions.
The probem may not be that the author doesn't understand the spirit of Wiki - it may be that he understands it too well.
/ full disclosure: I have contributed articles to Wiki, though I am under no illusions as to its potential and, frankly, share the author's views. When I do serious work, I don't use Wiki as a reference.
What is wrong with http://www.eb.com/ ? The original argument wasn't about paper vs online, but rather the validity of the method used and the accuracy of the information in a community developed source.
Which would you rather trust? Peer reviewed articles written by verified, accredited experts in the subject matter; or articles where a high-school freshman's edits are as valid as those of a Ph.D. w/20 years experience in the field?
EVENTUALLY the freshman's will be reviewed and accepted/rejected based on merit. What happens during those times where the article is read BEFORE such a process? What if it was reviewed by everyone in that freshman's entire high school? WOW, 2,500 article reviews and no edits! Sorry, I'd still place the 1 review by the Ph.D. with the experience over all 2,501 of the others.
The idea of digital encyclopedias is one that is due, for the reasons you mention. However, I can't envision how to honestly trust the veracity and validity of information in something like Wikipedia.
All opinions are NOT equal, and a system that gives idiots the same level of credence as experts isn't one that can be trusted.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.