Slashdot Mirror
FUD-Based Encyclopedias
blacklily8 writes "Someone has finally gotten around to offering an intelligent point-by-point rejoinder to an ex-Brittanica editor's lambasting of Wikipedia--which was covered in this earlier Slashdot post. Aaron Krowne, a mathematician and head of Emory University's library research department, argues here that established encyclopedias are using FUD to discredit what is actually a more reliable way to build an encyclopedia: 'McHenry's definition of quality seems to consist solely of presentational matters such as spelling, grammar, and text flow. These are of course important considerations, but I propose that there are other important facets of quality - for example, coverage.'"
But to think that Google will automagically give you the right information is just rediculous. Not long ago there was a review of a book in a paper here. The author of the book mentioned Francis Bacon, and discussed his philosophy. The journalist writing the article about the book didn't know who Francis Bacon was, so he consulted the great Internet. He got his information and wrote a small paragraph about how the painter Francis Bacon's philosophy was mentioned in the book. The author of the book obviously didn't mean the 20th century painter Francis Bacon, but the philosopher who lived in the 16th and 17th century. See, looking on the internet isn't always great. And when it comes to Wikipedia, it's a good source, most of the time. But it does happen that articles written by people who know what they are talking about is being re-edited into mediocrity.
One might add these aren't mutually exclusive. It would be perfectly possible, for example, to take a "snapshot" of Wikipedia, have the articles reviewed by (paid?) experts, grammar and spelling errors corrected, rubbish that crept in weeded out and all that and then publish that "stable" version - whether it's on a website (presumably a static one, not a Wiki), on CD-ROM/DVD-ROM/... or even in print or another medium.
The GFDL under which all Wikipedia content is licensed does allow you to do that. In fact, it already *has* been done, too: a snapshot of the German Wikipedia was published on CD-ROM (also available for download as an ISO image) last September, IIRC.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
After Microsoft did Encarta and began to crush Brittanica, Brittanica management went back to Bill Gates and proposed a lower buy-out price. Gates told them that their product now had negative value, because their sales force was so expensive to operate that it made the product noncompetitive.
I've found Wikipedia to be a great source for even somewhat esoteric things, in particular, chemistry/biology.
For example, I needed to know the biological significance of Zinc metal for a chemistry problem set the other day... lo and behold, Wikipedia's page on Zinc had a broad answer that led me to know what to search for in books (Zinc "fingers" & DNA).
I also used Wikipedia as the starting point for a large research paper on thrombin, a blood clotting enzyme. Note: this is not some simple little tidbit, but a enzyme in a extremely complex series of reactions that are the blood clotting cascade. And who had a good overview of the process to get me started ? Wikipedia ! (Coagulation) & (Thrombin).
What I find MOST helpful about wikipedia is the cross-linking. It represents uncommon words as a treasure trove of further information instead of a confusing word just sitting there. Sometimes you avoid looking up all those words because of the effort involved, but w/ Wikipedia it's extrememly painless.
As you can see, i've had a lot of good experiences w/ Wikipedia. I've found it to be lacking in certain topics, but I've actually found myself contributing to those topics due to the help i've received from it before.
I think the fact that it provides such a high quality resource to a lot of people will only encourage them to help add to it, to make it better, or as a way of saying thanks. I sure did.
I would have thought that in matters such as encyclopedias, the biggest indicator of quality would be accuracy.
Exactly. I can report a small sample of experience in seeing how accuracy has been managed in a particular wiki. That sample does not inspire me with confidence.
In a nutshell, I read a wiki page, saw some incorrect data about a subject which has been my bread and butter, and I added a note giving correct data (plus citations for independent verification by whoever might want to check it out).
A day later, the note had been removed to a discussion page accompanied by a comment by someone who seemed to be taking a role as the wiki's maintainer, saying that he 'didn't feel like' putting that stuff in 'right now'. Several months later, the correct info still was not back on the wiki page, the information on the wiki page was as incorrect as it had been when I first saw it.
I didn't try to push the correction, it's a free medium, seemingly the maintainer and maybe everybody else (or maybe not?) has a right to offer and put in what they please.
That freedom clearly has a lot of pluses.
But accuracy, or an assurance of accuracy, equally clearly isn't one of them.
I don't know how many wiki pages have maintainers. But that's what I saw happening.
My conclusion is that a wiki appears to be as accurate (or inaccurate) as its maintainer keeps it; or if there is no maintainer, then it is as likely to be as inaccurate as the most careless of its contributors.
-wb-
a lot of what you say makes sense, but i'm thinking about this statement a little differently than you are.
in my mind, both of these universe origin stories are just that. the scientific version is a 'theory' which means that science itself believes pretty strongly that it is true. the religion version is 'revealed knowledge' which means that the religion firmly believes that it is correct.
the way i look at it, in order for the article to be honest and truthful, it needs to focus on telling the full story, meaning that it needs to talk about who believes these theories and why/how they came to believe it historically.
presenting it this way is honest. after all, these two ideas are simply that... ideas. i reject your need to remove the opposing viewpoint, because after all, these are simply viewpoints. even if creationism is bullshit, it still plays a major role in our reality and should be reported on.
the same goes for the big bang type theory. personally, i believe that science has a lot of insight into this type of thing. i also believe that religion is a tool of oppressors historically and now. however, these beliefs don't make either theory right or wrong. they are just unproven ideas.
BTW, when i say the big bang is unproven, don't get me wrong. i *do* believe (very strongly) that we should teach our kids/selves science (and much more), but no scientific theory has been absolutely proven. science always changes and evolves. it evolves so much faster than the textbooks that much of what i was taught in school was actually not considered true anymore in current science at the time. if we want to investigate reality (fact-based or otherwise), we might as well be honest about it. the big bang should be essential knowledge, but everyone knows that it is probably more complex and multifaceted than the current theory. Sam
Christian here, believe in the big bang, and believe science gives good evidence to support it. Do not believe in evolution and don't believe there is enough evidence for it, if there proof comes out then I will accept it :) (Don't flame my beliefs just saying)
Now, if I look on wikipedia for evolution, I DO NOT WANT to read a thing saying why it is wrong. I want to read about the theory of evolution. The bottom of the article shuld have links and there might be a criticism of it etc. If i read an article on christianity i don't want it to be a criticism of why it's wrong, or a proponent of why it's right. I just want it to be the facts, what the people believe in, how it originated etc. Then at the bottom links to theories and ideas supporting or not in support shuld be presented.. and for the most part, I have seen it done this way on Wiki.. bravo
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)