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?"
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.