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?"
"encyclypedia"
This reminds me of Bart's discovery that he was drinking "smilk."
Good luck with your encyclypedia.
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
So true! Thats like saying a million monkeys might write a great open-source operating system, but how would they recognise it once they had?
ermm.. wait...
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
"...the process allows Wikipedia to approach the truth asymptotically..."
This is perhaps the most compelling point made in the article, to me. Of course, the cynic's read into that statement is that Wikipedia will never get to the truth (see Asymptote). In some ways though, that's really a pretty undeniable truth about the Wikipedia system -- even if it is True today, some jackass can come in and make it Not True tomorrow. Even if it's Not True for only five minutes, if someone looks at it during that time and assumes it to be correct, the wiki has failed in some sense.
Don't get me wrong, I really love Wikipedia, but I think some of the points raised a very much deserving of further discussion -- if you can make a crofty old coot like this guy happy, it's probably going to be a pretty damn good [encylo|wiki]pedia.
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.
His whole point is that the article started off reasonably good and through haphazard editing sounds like a highschool student wrote it.
I use wikipedia as well, but just to get a starting point on a subject I know little about.
"A REAL computer has ONE speed and the only powersaving it permits is when you pull the power leads out of the back!"
... 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/
Er, no.
His argument is that the editing process fails to achieve a decent encyclopedia, and the article on Hamilton - which, he claims, has been edited repeatedly and now appears worse off than when it started - is an example of that. And his question is, how do you know when Wikipedia is authoritative? Just telling him to "edit it himself" is missing the point. I don't have the knowledge or time to write my own encyclopedia. At some point, the product has to become useful to the reader, as well as enjoyable for the contributors. Thus, your point that "Wikipedia thinking requires more depth" counts against Wikipedia, not for it.
Maybe there are valid counterarguments to this guy's point of view - I've used Wikipedia and been, subjectively, satisfied with it - but yours is not one.
The Hamilton article is used as an illustration of the problems he percives - his core argument is contained in this passage:
To put the Wikipedia method in its simplest terms:
1. Anyone, irrespective of expertise in or even familiarity with the topic, can submit an article and it will be published.
2. Anyone, irrespective of expertise in or even familiarity with the topic, can edit that article, and the modifications will stand until further modified.
Then comes the crucial and entirely faith-based step:
3. Some unspecified quasi-Darwinian process will assure that those writings and editings by contributors of greatest expertise will survive; articles will eventually reach a steady state that corresponds to the highest degree of accuracy.
Points 1 and are essentially correct. Point 3 is the interesting one. One the face of it he is right again - sure contentious articles will go into dispute, but hum-drum articles on little-known issues? A typo or date inaccuracy could remain there for a very long time.
Of course similar errors could exist with a conventional encyclopedia - but I would be interested in refutations of his point 3.
FWIW, I love Wikipedia. It is an amazing resource and deserves to thrive, but if it can e made more robust, while retaining its essential open, collaborative nature, so much the better.
From an academic point of view I can quote say Encyclopadia Brittanica article on the charango from the 1995 edition.
Is it possible for me to date my wikipedia references in the same way? Particularly when the articles *are* likely to change often, and the review process before publication ('changes are visible immediately' comes up when I have a go at editing) is just not there.
For finding out about stuff wikipedia is fine - but I would prefer to quote something which has been published and can be got at 10 years later for review.
Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
I don't really get why some people get so upset over WIkipedia, and wants to defend ordinary encyclopedias as "more authoritative".
When it really matters, Wikipedia is of course not a primary source to go to. But then, neither are ordinary encyclopedias. When it _really_ matters, you go to the original research papers, subject-specific anthologies and conference proceedings. You will likely never see Encyclopedia Britannica referred to as an authority for an FDA application, for example, or for an envrionmental consequence analysis for some proposed industrial development.
What encyclopedias are good for, on the other hand, is to give a quick tour of and route into an area the reader isn't already familiar with. And since any deeper delving into the subject will require referencing a lot of other sources in any case, any smaller biases or omissions in this "portal text" isn't going to matter.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
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.
Let's hope you're not citing it in your research paper.
I've seen it cited on Aljazeera such as here.
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
I still remember the encyclopedia salesman that would set up in the mall. Heck, we even have a couple of very nice encyclopeidas in the house.
The problem is that information becomes dated very fast. Encyclopedias are useless for researching anything technology related, except as a historical snapshot. And with the collapse of the Soviet Union, new countries were springing into existance faster than the maps could be printed. Revolutions happen, presidents change and information that was once 100% correct becomes stale or downright wrong as new things are discovered. (How much more have we learned about Mars in the past year?) Despite the problems, online encyclopedias are still the way to go, and I would value Wikipedia as a reference far more than the beautiful leather bound dead tree editions.
My parents have a 1930's vintage encyclopedia set that they picked up in a garage sale once. It is quite facinating to go through and read a snapshot of what was known and believed to be true at the time.
My rights don't need management.
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".
From an academic point of view I can quote say Encyclopadia Brittanica article on the charango from the 1995 edition.
You can do such things with Wikipedia as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Slashdo t&oldid=279882
Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
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.
I will say one thing Wiki excels at over traditional resources is Science and Technology. For example: The Oort cloud, which is a theoretical source of comets, is often gospel in many lower level science and encyclopedia text books.
Britannica Article
Wiki Article
As you can see there is a major difference in the way the theory is presented. Britannica as science fact and Wiki as theory.
Wikipedia is a community effort.
If we replace the word "community" with the word "committee" the problem is obvious.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
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...
Now how in the hell am I supposed to trust this definition of Asymptote?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
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.
I am a research scientist and the material that can be found on wikipedia's website in the subjects of phyics and mathematics is vastly superior to anything the commercial encyclopedias have published. They seem to focus on creating material for high-school students, but their texts are largely useless for higher level physics and mathematics. They just don't have enough detail. This is where Wikipedia excels. Although Wikipedia's converage of physics and mathematics is often written in terms not familiar to a layman, there is often some part of the article that makes it understandable to those who are not involved in the fields of physics and mathematics.
Thumbs up to the guys at Wikipedia and to those who have contributed articles on mathematics and physics.
I think that the poster has an undue faith in the philosophy of the Wikipeadea as opposed to its reality. An interesting but fraught analogy would be Marx's ideas about Socialism versus the real-world implementation of them. Such noble purposes ruined by mere human frailty.
McHenry's point is that despite the excellent ideals behind Wikipedia, which would seem self-evidently true to those of us inclined to believe "in faith" the potentiality of community-based-development, the reality is that in the area of research and writing an encyclopedea (as opposed to software) that:
- Many people are essentially lazy. Many might come upon an article that is incomplete or poorly written but for many reasons will not take the time to correct it even if they are qualified to do so.
- Many people are essentially arrogant. Many might come upon an article that is incomplete or poorly written and will take the time to correct it even if they are notqualified to do so either in subject knowledge or language use.
- Many people are essentially stupid. Many might come upon an article that is incomplete or poorly written and not know the difference.
- Some people (especially adolecents) are cruel and destructive and will muck up perfectly good articles just because they can.
Thus, the maintainers (bureaucrats?) are at a bit of a disadvantage as they have a constantly moving target.A modest proposal then. Why not have a "perfect" flag for articles? This flag would indicate that in the opinion of a certain number of maintainers (or heaven forbit, subject matter experts) the article in question is a close to perfect as possible. The article would then be locked for editing and it would require a special appeal to the bureaucrats to reopen it to change it; for the addition of newly brought to light information, for example.
In this way the bureaucrats can concentrate on the areas that need continuing work without having to continuously go over settled articles. But the community can still bubble up new information and content for existing articles, but in a more controlled manner. Just a thought. I'm certain I'm not the first to bring it up as it seems perfectly obvious.
Oh, and lastly the poster needs to get over the whole "the Internet will save us/print people are dinos who don't get it" attitude. McHenry made a living managing the process of updating an encyclopedia. Just because he did it in a for-profit environment in a medium where cost made revisions an annual event, does not mean he doesn't have insight into the area of maintaining an open encyclopedia in digital form. Don't kill the messenger.
"Being Irish, he possessed an abiding sense of tragedy which sustained him through brief episodes of joy." -W. B.
I also wouldn't trust it not to gloss over important aspects of topics and to create the impression that a relatively unimportant aspect of a topic was more important than it really was by going into too much detail over it.
I could say the same for Wikipedia. Except that I haven't cracked open an encyclopedia in years whereas I use Wikipedia three or four times a week to look up a fact. Most of the time I don't go directly to the site, but search for the topic using google, and then click on the link to a wikipedia article that will show up. I know the link is worth clicking if it comes from wikipedia or one of the advertising supported 'mirrors'. I don't even mind the ads since I mostly browse with lynx anyway.
But I wouldn't feel super confident that what I read in a wikipedia article was the complete and total truth ( though most of the time it comes close ) until I had at least checked out a few other sources.
Sometimes, I used to start at the 'top level' of a subject in wikipedia that I wanted to learn about, and then click the links, going into as much depth as I felt like by clicking ever-deeper. The text was structured as an article, and the subjects that were links were in context. I loved this because it made learning about a subject in general easy. Now that wikipedia seems to have reorganised it's top levels by deleting the well written and informative top level articles and replacing them with information-barren alphabetic indexes, that sort of learning is not as easy, though it can still be done once you go a little deeper into the articles.
In my opinion, the alphabetic indexes should have been added to, wikipedia, but not replaced the top level articles which put the subtopics so nicely in context.
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
And funny enough, that change has already been made. I believe they stole the text directly from Mr. McHenry's article!
seriouslyexcited.net
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.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
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.
Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica which have been corrected in Wikipedia