Observer Gives Wikipedia Glowing Report

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."

Comments

Locking Articles

[Gob Blesh It]

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?

Re:Locking Articles

[Gob Blesh It]

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?

Re:Locking Articles

[DrEldarion]

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.

Re:Locking Articles

[FooAtWFU]

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.

Re:Locking Articles

[yppiz]

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

Glowing report? More like optimism.

[waxmop]

First, don't attribute a columnist's piece to the newspaper. Second, John Naughton praises wikipedia for what it could be more than what it is right now. He's excited about it as a proof-of-concept.

Heh

[pHatidic]

If you go to Wikipedia in the press then you can see all the articles about Wikipedia that have been in mainstream newspapers. There really isn't any reason to post every single one, especially since this is probably the fifth article on Wikipedia that has been in the observer in the last year. Granted, I love Wikipedia, but everyone on slashdot already knows what it is so linking to it every week only serves to cause problems for the people monitoring the recent changes by giving them a surge of extra work.

Maybe The Observer should be a wiki, too

[hunterx11]

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.

The Pet Goat

[idiotnot]

There are editors for a reason -- throwing out a picture that's a central point of a goddamn Michael Moore hit piece shows that some of the content isn't what you'd call, "objective." In fact, it makes Fox News look like an example of journalistic integrity.

And it's not only this article. I was looking through a few things on Eastern Europe, specifically, the revolution in Romania in 1989. It's one thing to explain what happened -- it's another to assign motivations, for which you have zero evidence.

Wikipedia is useful for some things, but when it comes to contentious political issues, it's pretty lousy.

What makes Wikipedia interesting

[Solr_Flare]

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.

life before Wikipedia?

[Jamesday]

"Just as one day kids will wonder if there was life before Google". Well, I'd say it is good that Wikipedia is in the company of Google.:) And also in the top 100 English language web sites according to Alexa. I suppose it's certain that this experiment is doomed to be a flop.:)

I'm biased, since I'm one of the roots for the Wikipedia/Wikimedia servers.

I suppose I should ask: any interest in a Slashdot interview on the capacity planning and technical side of Wikipedia? That's my area... of course, that also means I'll say what we'd love to have donated (anyone got a couple of racks and 100 megabits/s spare?:)) Oh, sorry, I'm supposed to have a neutral point of view...:) Or is that I'm supposed to be serious in public? Never can get that straight...:)

If he had only consulted the Wikipedia.

[khasim]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee

A long-held myth of the bumblebee was that, in terms of theoretical aerodynamics, it did not have the capacity (in terms of wing size or beat per second) to achieve flight with the degree of wing loading necessary. This myth became popular after an aerodynamicist in the 1930's stated that a bumblebee was not capable of flight. The statment was based upon an assumption that the bee's wing could be treated as a static aerofoil. However, in reality the bumblebee's flight is characterized by an occilating wing that shares more characteristics with a helicopter than an aeroplane.

Re:Finally

[Gob Blesh It]

And what of everyone who read the article before someone more knowledgeable noticed the mistake and corrected it?

And please note I'm not talking of small errors of interpretation or language. I'm talking about honkers like "Prof. George Peabody expanded on string theorist Brian Greene's work to develop rope theory" (paraphrased)--two months uncorrected when I read it on the Columbia University article. You'll find shit like this scattered across the entire encyclopedia, if you're watchful.

Not just "political", any contentious issue.

[khasim]

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.

Locking

[FiReaNGeL]

Even if locking articles would fix the vandalism problem, it isn't the best solution IMHO.

Why don't they implement a 'sandbox' where new additions go, getting published after a certain period of time and where previous authors can vote against the addition?

My thoughts on Wikipedia

[xXunderdogXx]

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?

Re:Reasons for editing Wikipedia

[meringuoid]

So yes, biased in many ways, maybe not too accurate or authorative, but very useful nevertheless.

I always think of Wikipedia as being quite like the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. You'll find out a lot from reading it, if not always what you actually wanted to know...