Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Observer Gives Wikipedia Glowing Report

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the wiki-wiki dept.

JaxWeb writes "The UK newspaper The Observer is running an article about the open encyclopaedia Wikipedia. The article, 'Why encyclopaedic row speaks volumes about the old guard,' gives Wikipedia a glowing report and mentions some of the issues which have recently occurred regarding the project, including the need to lock the George Bush article in the run up to the election, and Ex-Britannica editor Robert McHenry's comments, as previously mentioned on Slashdot."

9 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Locking Articles by Gob+Blesh+It · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do the Wikipedia admins need to lock popular, topical and controversial articles from editing? Is it because these articles somehow attract more vandals than well-meaning passersby and contributors?

    Or is it just that these popular, topical and controversial articles make Wikipedia's fundamental flaws more obvious?

    1. Re:Locking Articles by Gob+Blesh+It · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, I've seen obvious vandalism--and I mean obvious--on articles ranging from black hole theory to obscure Norwegian towns. Until I'd come along, they'd typically gone unreverted for weeks or more. And yes, I did revert them, but once you've read that a world-renowned figure skater was a member of GNAA, how can you trust anything you read on that site--especially when vandalism isn't always quite so obvious?

    2. Re:Locking Articles by DrEldarion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Locking the articles is quite a good idea, in my opinion, because a lot of people online (well, and in general) are just morons.

      As an example, head on over to EBGames.com and look at some of the "reviews" for upcoming popular games. You'll notice that there can be hundreds of reviews with not ONE person actually knowing how the game is (since it isn't out yet). Fanboy A will come along and say "THIS IS THE BEST GAME EVER" while Anti-Fanboy A will come along and say "WASTE OF MONEY BUY (competing product) INSTEAD!", and the bickering will go back and forth and on and on until the actual ratings are completely worthless.

      The same thing would happen with the wikipedia articles. If every schmuck can come along and throw in their uninformed two-cents about things they only think they know about, the "information" then becomes useless. The more controversial topics attract more idiots, and the ratio of informed people to uninformed people drops to a level where it's hard to keep things managed well.

    3. Re:Locking Articles by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You verify it. Wikipedia has a big fat disclaimer about how it makes no guarantees of validity. If your topic matters, then look it up somewhere else in addition to Wikipedia, and see if the facts seem to match. If you're doing research for something important, do not rely on Wikipedia alone- heck, if you're doing a major research paper or something, you shouldn't be using an encyclopedia, let alone Wikipedia.

      You can also check the page history. Find an old version, see the "diff" between it and the current version, notice what stands out.

      Wikipedia is a bit like the Internet in general. Some information is right, some is probably wrong (whether due to ignorance or malice). But unlike the Internet, anyone can edit Wikipedia to fix something. Now, they can also edit it to break something, but if they do it in a systematic fashion they have a rather high chance of getting caught, tracked down, and banned. We've had a variety of users like that in the past.

      Wikipedia is a "convenience" source. It's excessively convenient. It can provide a useful summary of information, and you can then know what other information you ought to look up.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    4. Re:Locking Articles by yppiz · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Locking is done as a last resort in the face of persistent vandalism. When a page is locked, ordinary users (anon and registered) cannot edit it. However, administratores can still edit the page. Additionally, the parallel discussion page for the entry is still editable.

      Except for one exception - the front page of the Wikipedia - locks are never permanent, and usually last for 1 to 3 days. This small amount of time is enough for revert wars to cool off and for most vandals to lose interest in the page.

      I haven't looked at these articles recently, but typically, even entries on controversial topics like Osama bin Laden are unlocked most of the time.

      I have thought about why articles are rarely locked - it's not just that the community values contribution, but also that the technology makes it so easy to undo vandalism, that many vandals lose interest. Additionally, by giving vandalism a rather short life on popular pages, which is by definition where vandalism would be the most visible, it discourages others from doing the same. The lifespan of vandalism on a popular page is measured in minutes.

      The site makes it easier to undo an edit than to create it. If there weren't a version history and a revert feature, I suspect that vandalism would be a much greater problem.

      --Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

  2. Maybe The Observer should be a wiki, too by hunterx11 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From TFA:

    According to the laws of aerodynamics, the bumblebee should not be able to fly. Yet fly it manifestly does, albeit in a stately fashion. So much for the laws of aerodynamics.

    Erm, whoops, yes they should be able to fly. Their cliché is outdated.

    --
    English is easier said than done.
  3. What makes Wikipedia interesting by Solr_Flare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is that the wikipedia is designed around the original intent of the Internet in the first place. Nevermind what the internet has become in the modern era, it was originally designed to share and consolidate information from all its users. The Wikipedia is designed specifically to facilitate that. And, while in its default mode, it does leave itself open to people who want to make an arse of themselves, there are plenty of counter measures and options to such problems. All in all, it is satisfying to see the success of the project purely because it is nice to see the internet used for what it was intended for and do it well.

    --
    You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
  4. Not just "political", any contentious issue. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Wikipedia is useful for some things, but when it comes to contentious political issues, it's pretty lousy.
    It's lousy for anything that people get upset about. It's useful for looking up historical names and dates and events.

    That is all.

    Well, it's also useful for playing games with pages that you don't agree with until they get locked.
  5. My thoughts on Wikipedia by xXunderdogXx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many people when first informed about the concept of Wikipedia scoff at the idea that you can get factual information from a medium that is open to everyone. Normally I just agre with them that it is a problem that requires some effort to combat.

    Recently I've changed my whole view on reading information online, due mostly to thinking about the Wikipedia concept. Consider Wikipedia to be analogous to asking a classmate a question like "What does ecology mean?" or "Could you explain a null modem?"

    Nobody would decry this as a fruitless effort to gain information, because it is quite possible that your friend knows a lot of information on the subject in question. So you take that information at face value, knowing that there is a possibility he's wrong. If the information "feels right" or "feels wrong" that's all you can tell. It then becomes a starting point for deeper investigation, not the final word on anything. In the end it raises another very important question: Who do you trust to have the final word on something?