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
"...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 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!"
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.
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.
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".
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.
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 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.
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.
Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica which have been corrected in Wikipedia