Slashdot Mirror
The Register Takes Aim at Wikipedia Again
Syberghost writes "The Register has fired off another salvo in their long-running war of words with Wikipedia, in the form of an article about the lack of "moral responsibility" from the operators of Wikipedia. Wikipedia users fired back less than an hour later, making the Register headline obsolete."
making the Register headline obsolete.
And then what? Does that make the Register story obsolete too?
While I don't think Wiki should worry about all these whingings (does TheOnion have moral responsibility to warn its readers?), Wiki users might get more out of the whole ordeal by asserting (via an entry) the unnecessity of moral responsibility in Wiki.
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
wikipediOWNED!
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
and slashdot will make this article irrelevant by posting it several times over in various forms
And whose set of morals are we talking about here?
The Register article saying that Wikipedia was filled with errors was itself filled with errors. At one point they actually called MMORPG's "shoot em up games." The real definition is right in the acronym, I mean how hard is it to figure it out.
The very openeness that makes Wikipedia such a dynamic and powerful resource exposes it to abuse. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it an incredibly valuable tool? Yes. Will it continue to improve because of things like this? Of course.
If that Wiki entry is firing back, the gunpowder must have been wet.
They should be held just as accountable as, say, the Boston Globe.
If you knew their history, you would know why.
Founded in Nazi Germany by Adolph Hitler they were used to register all Jews marked for death in concentration camps. During the 60's, they supported neo-Nazis in America and were involved in the Kennedy Assassination. In the 90's they started covering IT news.
- From WikiPedia
I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Any intelligent netizen takes a variety of sources (e.g. Wikipedia, El Reg, Slashdot, Digg, the BBC etc) and forms their own opinions.
Yes, Wikipedia has grown up, and I think it needs to tighten up procedures. But The Register's bizarre vendetta against what the term "wiki fiddlers" is annoying. Perhaps The Register needs to grow up a little too?
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
"The blame goes here, the blame goes there - the blame goes anywhere, except Wikipedia itself. If there's a problem - well, the user must be stupid!"
If this statement wasn't sarcastic then...
This episode shows a strength of Wikipedia, it is quick to respond to problems when it recognizes them. Tell a company about a bug, wait a month, get a response. Tell Wikipedia about a factual error, wait a hour, and see it fixed.
The reason this went unfound for so long? No one cares about Seigenthaler. Even if he was a Nazi.
"A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes." -Mahatma Gandhi
What moral responsibility does the journalists at The Register have to write an important article obviously missing from Wikipedia?
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
I am surprised the people at The Register can say moral responsiblity without choking. Speaking of Wikipedia an edit should be made under yellow journalism to include a link to The Register's site.
...C'mon people, we've all tried to publish a good ol' spoof article on wikipedia here and there. Unfortunately, none of them have made it through, so we've had to resort to several other sites where the Internet isn't such serious business.
Damn, if only I could've gotten that site past about me being the greatest man in the universe.
The media has no sense of humour, and that's a damned shame.
Wikipedia is a very easily accessible free source of information with just as much reliability as any other non-peer-reviewed source. Would we somehow be better off if Wikipedia didn't exist at all? Of course not. I can only assume the bad press is fueled by ulterior motives.
The same process that makes the most popular articles on Wikipedia of better quality than Britannica also makes the least popular articles of lesser quality. Although no one was willing to say it to his face, the real reason the error in Siegenthaler's article persisted for so long is that not many people care enough about him to read his eponymous article. Over the four months it was posted I'm willing to bet less than a thousand people read it. Really it is a tree-falls-in-a-forest issue, if no one is reading incorrect material does it really matter that it's incorrect?
People ask, "Where will Wikipedia be after five years." The real question is, "Where will the world be after five years of Wikipedia?"
From TFA:
Everything you read is suspect! You'd better duck!
Only a paranoiac, or a mad person, can sustain this level of defensiveness for any length of time however, and to hear a putative "encyclopedia" making such a statement is odd, to say the least.
This is just plain bullshit. My grandfather had a saying he taught me(and pardon me for some downhomey common sense), but it was popular among he and his friends, and they were very well adjusted people:
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing that you see.
This isn't paranoia. This is reality. Individuals, corporations, governments, etc... tend to be bullshitters. Half the time, they don't even realize they're spreading bullshit. The reason is too many mistake their opinion for fact, because most people don't go deep enough to care what the difference is.
The INSTANT you identify a source as something you can believe is honest and accurate without you having to verify facts or take with a grain of salt, is the instant you've set yourself up to be misled and enter a state of dogmatism.
You question everything. You question what you see, you question what you hear, you question it all. Not out of some hysterical paranoia, but out of rational observation of the reality that we live in a bullshitters paradise.
This article should get -1, Ministry of Truth publication. Believe half of what you hear, nothing that you see, and be happy and secure doing it.
If there's a problem - well, the user must be stupid!
I'll probably be modded down for saying so, but that one sentence nicely sums up Wikipedia's philosophy.
One is that Seigenthaler should have corrected the entry himself...
See, they even blamed Seigenthaler for the libel against him!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
They seem to be on a trolling binge in recent weeks. I don't really mind this - their tone as always been cynical and has respected no sacred cows, but the current flock of flamebait arcticles just seem to me to be a little desperate.
The blog attacks were kind of amusing last year, when the blogging hype was at it's most ridiculous, the snarky Wikipedia articles were occasionally entertaining, though I've never really understood the motivation in attacking that project (unless you happen to be an encyclopedia publisher). But it now just seems to be axe-grinding for no obvious reason than to bait various predictably-easy-to-bait groups of people, and the writing itself is less subtle and much less entertaining.
How long can you keep generating sparks from that axe you're grinding when there's no axe left?
You know they call 'em fingers but I've never seen 'em fing. Oh, there they go.
A big issue with Wikipedia is that it assumes that humans are not prone to mischief, and that most everyone is prone to do the right thing. We all know that this is not true in society, therefore it should be common knowledge that Wikipedia in its current form cannot be thought of as any dependable objective source of information, any more than someone's personal web page on Yahoo's Geocities! There really shouldn't even be a "media controversy" over Wikipedia, but the major media players choose to make it an issue.
See also:
is not how many Wyoming has no matter how many times Wikipedia claims that.
TheRegister motivation is based on there ideas of "right and wrong"
if the Government has no or little morals, then is there a place for moral responsibility.
Its just another boring old fashioned social contract, principle of political right, yawwn.
Its not about (right, wrong), (right, left), just does it work or does it not work.
And (you couldn't have scripted it better if you'd tried) - the initial response that wikipedians posted to the "Moral Responsibility" page was itself copied without permission from another site!
However.... the great strength of Wikipedia is in how quickly it is able to recover and self-heal from these sorts of problems. It's far from perfect, but it is damn useful nonetheless.
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
I don't see any reason to change anything about Wikipedia or how it is created. I understand how it is created, how much I can trust it, and what I need to do to verify the information on it. Anybody who doesn't understand this about Wikipedia at this point must be from Mars.
I think people who criticize Wikipedia for the way its entries are created are living in a world where they assume that just because an information resource is well known or popular, it must be accurate. That wasn't true when companies like the New York Times and ABC had a near monopoly on information dissemination, and it sure isn't any more accurate today.
What needs to change is not Wikipedia, it's people's naive notions about epistemology. Or, to put it more bluntly: don't trust any information unless it either doesn't matter, or you can verify it from multiple independent sources yourself. Popularity, trust, and reputation of a source are very unreliable guides to the validity of information.
This kind of conflict is excellent. It keeps everybody honest, or at least brings flaws out in the open, so as to lead to potential resolutions to such problems.
Of course, the world will never see NBC Dateline truly questioning what is said on FOX News, nor will the New York Times truly question the reporting of the Washington Post.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
> The Register article saying that Wikipedia was filled with errors was itself filled
> with errors. At one point they actually called MMORPG's "shoot em up games." The real
> definition is right in the acronym, I mean how hard is it to figure it out.
Or the following on the first page (emphasis mine):
"Seigenthaler, a former Robert Kennedy aide and newspaper editor wrote about his anguish a fortnight ago, describing how an edit to his Wikipedia biography implicated in him in the Kennedy assassination."
I would like to introduce a neologism
relash: disgust with criticism or backlash.
Espcially when the topic has been already rehashed a few hundered times in these very comments.
http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org/
They sent me this email after I asked why they where doing this:
Hello,
You do not understand the issues here, so perhaps, it is best for you to
sit this one out on the side.
Why must I become involved in the Wikipedia website? If there is
offending or inaccurate content, about me, my business or family, why
should I be required to become a user and edit the content?
I am interested to learn why you thought I would be interested in your
comments.
Regards,
--
http://52reasons.ath.cx/
Wikipedia is the prefect format for any type of information on the Internet. Sadly The Register has failed to observe one significant point; Unlike the Register itself Wikipedia is subject to a thousand year old form of analysis: Peer Review. If peer review is good enough for the scientific community (they put a man on the moon, the register has yet to accomplish that) and the medical community (they have done heart transplants, the Register has not) and the Linux Kernel, as any open source project, is subject to peer review (they have a very good perating system, the Register has yet to boot a machine) why would we not subject our historical data to such a process? Why not subject our media to such processes. Sadly it seems that the Register has the disease many younger Internet-generation kids have, a lack of patience. Peer review is slower, but as history moves on, faster. I personally think that colleges could help improve the content by assigning classmates, in the study of their respective fields to contribute to Wikipedia's need for editors. The broad variety of instructors, and college cultures could accelerate Wiki's accuracy and improve credibility. It would also be an excellent place for students and colleges to like student thesis and papers as additional linked sites. I.e.
The American Revolution
Student Works
Browse Purdue's Student Archives
Browse Stanfords' Student Archives
and so forth.
If peer review is good enough for science, medicine, and open source it is certainly good enough for history as well.
My 2cents
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
But Wikipedia was ready for The Register. They already had an entry for "Yellow Journalism."
Stop accepting every stupid story submission about Wikipedia.
It's BORING.
Seriously, its like opening up Popular Science to see an article about how Scientific American discovered there were some factual discrepancies in Encyclopedia Britannica Vol 24 45th Edition entry on Underwater Basketweaving.
I'm glad we have an authoritative opinion on this issue, otherwise I wouldn't know what to think about Wikipedia. Those reckless ne'er-do-wells should heed this criticism, because as we all know, British tabloids have never had their credibility called into question due to the publication of libelous or inaccurate information.
I attribute this scandal to the streak of rugged individualism present in American culture. When will you Yanks learn that the truth is decided by experts, and that expertise is determined by well-known and respected members of a field?
Nothing to see, move along. It is another useless bit of typing from the clueless Andrew "I'm a journalist because it says so on this business card I printed" Orlowski.
What a waste of time. Sheesh, I guess I'll have to look into this "digg" thing.
Wikipedia must have abused Andrew Orlowski as a child, because I can't think of any good reason for him to keep harping on it. Check out the Register's archives. All of the Wikipedia bashing is from Orlowski. Wow, Andrew, great reporting. I totally didn't know that some things on the internet are false. Way to go on the investigative reporting! Could we maybe get a twenty part series entitled, "Shock! Falsehoods found on internet!"
Some Wikipedia fans are little overenthusiastic. Wikipedia's lack of review is a weakness. But just because it's a weakness doesn't make it useless. Indeed, most of the internet is full of unreviewed crap, yet we all still use it. While Wikipedia would like to think of itself as challenging traditional encyclopedias, I don't see it happening. But compared to doing research on the internet as whole (say, via Google), it's a definate win. Wikipedia is, compared to the general internet, better organized, more neutral, and better reviewed. For a quick overview of a topic I find it an extremely valuable resource. I accept its weaknesses, help flesh stuff out as I can, and get on with my life. If Orlowski thinks Wikipedia is unredeemable crap, so be it. He's reported that. Now move the fuck on. Reposting "Wikipedia has some errors and is therefore completely useless" every week is hardly a good use his time or The Register's money.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
...putting the blame for lack of responsibility on the net solely wikipedia's shoulders just isn't fair!
Reliability and quality come from accountability, be it an encyclopedia or a complex engineering project.
An engineer who makes one mistake, even if it is not fatal, will lose his license. Why is that? Because said mistakes cannot be tolerated.
The same goes for an encyclopedia. If a high degree of quality is wanted, then people will have to pay severely when they make a mistake. Of course, that's very difficult to accomplish in an online setting, especially one like Wikipedia.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
There'd still be juries to decide whether the law is reasonable and what the punishment should be. Every infringement is a chance to reevaluate the law. Revert wars and vandalism might get certain people temporarily or permanently banned from being able to edit certain portions of the law.
Note: the word "vandalism" is abused a lot by various wikipedia editors to refer to edits they dislike.
No, but you see scores of people who actually know things question all those sources given above. Any ninformation source by it's nature is fallible, because humans are involved. Unfortunately there is a creed of people (called journalists) that thing that journalists can never be really wrong in fact unless something is against their political beliefs.
"Although no one was willing to say it to his face, the real reason the error in Siegenthaler's article persisted for so long is that not many people care enough about him to read his eponymous article."
Agreed. Here's an experiment: Go to Wikipedia, click on "Random article". Look at the history for that page, and determine how long it has existed, and how many edits it has had. Now, compare to the Seigenthaler article:
1st edit: 13:53, 15 September 2004. Created with only the contents, "John Seigenthaler SR"
2nd edit: 08:29, 26 May 2005. False biography added.
3rd edit: 15:52, 29 May 2005. Minor spelling correction.
4th edit: 05:06, 23 September 2005. False info deleted, replaced with correct info.
So, the article lasted for 9 months with only his name. Now, any average Wikipedian who came across this article would have marked it for "speedy deletion" immediately, since there is no content/context. In the span of over 1 year, the article had 4 edits. How does your random article compare? How about 10 random articles, or 100?
Founded in Nazi Germany by Adolph Hitlerthe UK by John Lettice and Mike "Crazy Brit" Magee in 1994. they were used to register all Jews marked for death in concentration camps report about technology. During the 60's, they supported neo-Nazis in America and were involved in the Kennedy Assassination did not exist. In the 90's they started covering IT news.
- From WikiPedia
Straw man.
Check out this article at an anti-pedophile website. Makes for some interesting reading.
e =11
http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?articl
They will only strengthen Wikipedia. Certainly it has faults and now that it is gaining in popularity these problems are showing up more frequently. I welcome them, as making the problems known to everyone who uses Wikipedia should lead to them being fixed. This is how an open and free society should work and we should applaud these attacks.
Cripple fiiiight!
The problem is that while Andrew Orlowski highlights the problems with Wikipedia he does so in such a consistently inflammatory way (wiki-fiddler, anyone) to make the word 'troll' appear to be fair enough. Many of his reports look like pure flamebait, or rather click-bait designed to increase El Reg's advertising revenue.
Wikipedia has its problems, indeed and it is good to see someone willing to go against the flow and point out the system's short-comings. Sadly Orlowski's invective (for me at least) got old rather quickly, with more than a hint of spittle-flecked vehemence in his writing.
The biggest problem Americans have today is we put too much credibility in publishing. The qualifications of a journalist are rarely printed along with the article they have produced. As stated earlier, it is important to verify facts. The problem is not that wikipedia has or does not have reliability, it's that Americans are not versed in factual verification of information.
Wikipedia Class Action
Might it not be a solution to the integrity problem for Wikipedia to simply provide both a controlled version and an uncontrolled version?
I mean, the principal Wikipedia contributors could have the right to mark articles as "controlled". By default when a user read articles on wikipedia he or she would see the controlled versions of articles but could always switch to the latest version (which could still be edited by anyone) if he or she so prefered.
]{
I wonder what percent of slashdot moderators and meta-moderators won't get the joke.
Just a thought on how Wikipedia can counter the problem of anonymous people editing the entries for fun/profit etc..
Have something like a unstable version and a stable version. The only difference would be that the stable version would be one that has been certified by a some majority of the editors who worked on the article (say 60-70 %). The unstable version would contain all edits, including the latest uncertified one.
There should be a disclaimer on the top that says that the page that you are viewing a is an unstable version and the last stable version is at some linked location. Or vice versa..
Wikipedia can make a policy decision as to whether to show the stable version first or the unstable version first. Finally, people can edit an uncertified/unstable version, just as they can do now, but if they want to suggest changes to a certified version of the article there should be some sort of "Report error" button on the page, which will be sent out to the rest of the editors of the page.
Any thoughts folls?
Chase thought Wikipedia was a joke site and he made the edit to amuse a colleague. From which we conclude that the spoof site Uncyclopedia, which consists entirely of fictional entries, is doing far better than expected, and that Wikipedia has a long way to go to rid itself of the image that it's a massive, multiplayer shoot-em-up game, or MMORPG.
They're obviously not referring to MMORPGs as shoot-em-ups. They're saying it's not a "massive, multiplayer shoot-em-up game" nor is it a "MMORPG". It's neither one of two separate styles of games that involve large numbers of participants, that is.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Pfft...you're a troll. And GP was right.
I'm amazed that people consider Wiki a reliable source of information! Haha!!
Some parts of Wikipedia are more reliable than others, and in different ways.
If you measure reliability by how factual an entry is, there are many entries that cite the sources, but there are also those that don't. Of those that don't, there are some that can be checked against various online and offline sources.
If you measure reliability by how many perspectives a given topic is addressed, you run into similar issues.
If you measure reliability by how understandable it is to the common man, again there are issues and differing degrees.
One can also measure reliability on how well Wikipedia gets you up to speed on a topic, and how well upon arriving on an article you can find the articles containing the prerequisite material to understand the article.
Then there's the reliability of being able to tell to what degree an aticle is reliable. Some articles it's clear that it is reliable, and some it isn't. Furthermore, some articles have sections that are reliable and can be demonstrated reliable while other sections aren't.
An engineer who makes one mistake, even if it is not fatal, will lose his license. Why is that? Because said mistakes cannot be tolerated.
Were that the case, there would be no Professional Engineers. The mistake must rise to the level of "gross negligence" as defined by state law - and a complaint must be filed. And even then, license revokation is only one of many penalties available.
People, even engineers, make mistakes all the time.
-h- (PE)
I'm not sure that firing back with an article on moral responsibility
was a good response to the criticism. The article on free will has a subsection on
moral responsibility already. The new article is unclearly written, and much
of it is non-NPOV original research. For instance, it asserts, "Humans subjectively
determine whether given actions are right or wrong." It'd be hard to find a
more controversial claim.
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages on the internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants./wiki
I could only read halfway through page two of TFA because the article was so trollish.
Self appointed experts do not like knowledgeable peasants treading on their turf.
Well, seeing that several of my college professors consider Wikipedia to be one of the better sources, and indeed encourage their students to take advantage of it (as long as it's taken advantage of cautiously)...
It's not that Wikipedia is unreliable. Some of it is unreliable. There are things that need to be fixed, stuff that needs tweaking, and some things need a major overhaul. But... I wouldn't blanket-statement Wikipedia as unreliable.
An engineer who makes one mistake, even if it is not fatal, will lose his license. Why is that? Because said mistakes cannot be tolerated.
Is this erroneous information something you picked up reading Wikipedia, or is it just a product of your own personal ignorance and stupidity?
But would printing the qualifications really matter? Newspapers and news programmes will only hire journalists from the institutions which produce journalists that are deemed suitable by the news producers.
You end up with a cycle where certain institutions are billed as being the best at producing journalists, just because their journalists are later hired by the big media conglomerates. Of course, that does nothing to deal with the issue that the journalists being produced are still lacking in the most basic of journalistic qualifications.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Facts don't change. What is the advantage to having a dynamic source of information if the core information doesn't change? Unless it is just regurgating popular opinion and not facts.
Let me first start off by saying that I am a big fan of the Wikipedia project. It stands as a crowning achievement of open source thought, and even creative commons doesn't take the principles of free exchange of ideas as far into non-software related disciplines as much as Wikipedia does. It is something that is widely used in academia, and is generally considered as an acceptable source document.
That being said, any source used deserves to be verified. There are a very few sources that are considered beyond reproach (like the OED, for example), and any citation that is ever used in any sort of scholarly research work ought to be verified against comparable, alternate sources to make sure it is not totally missing the mark. Wikipedia's usefulness comes from the fact that it contains information available from those that know. A traditional encyclopedia might give you the spec the engineer wrote on how a thing should work, whereas Wikipedia gives you the opportunity to read the reports filed by end users and service technicians to give you a more practical sense of how it does. It's strength is that it is a living document that evolved not after a decade and a new publication, but within days of old information becoming obsolete. Generally speaking, the community seems to be fairly upright in their use of the Wikipedia system, but that can be said of any community based system. If Wikipedia were to change the way it functions, it would not be able to function as well as it does.
That being said, if someone were to quote a Wikipedia definition to me, I would probably believe them, but I wouldn't want to put money on their being right without having something to verify their definition against. Smart researchers always check their sources when it counts.
Wikipedia will always be a source that must be taken with a grain of salt. Using Wikipedia as a reference in a research paper would be ludicrous unless cited as "word on the street." That said, it's still freedom that must not be abridged. Freedom can be wild at times, but that doesn't mean we should lock it up. People must accept that Wikipedia is nothing more than a forum for everyone to post an article, and that vandalism will happen. I suppose Wikipedia could put up a general disclaimer (if they don't already), but it sounds to me that a few people are ready to just kill Wikipedia once and for all. Gimme a break! It's public forum!
Andrew Orlowski is a troll.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Even if Wikipedia's only legacy is to get that through to people, I'd say it's a great success.
It's an information resource, not the guardian of truth; why does The Register think it so hilarious that readers shouldn't just believe what they see without question?
Maybe it would've been easier if it wasn't referred to as an encyclopedia in the first place? It's true that Wikipedia is not as good as "traditional" encyclopedias at being an encyclopedia, but it's much better at being what encyclopedias are supposed to be.
Oh and I actually read that whole rant - such passionate hatred, and for what? A way to share information? It's really hard to get where that's coming from (also the spelling and grammar leave a lot to be desired).
sic transit gloria mundi
To be slightly pedantic, no. Accountability can only help ensure quality once you have it. If you have a room full of kindergarteners and ask them to write a Calculus textbook, they will produce a textbook of dubious quality even if you kill every kid who makes a mistake. Quality can only come from people who know what they're doing. Accountability is merely one way to seperate the competent ones out from the incompetent.
Personally, I suspect that Wikipedia's method is a somewhat viable way to shuffle out the stupids, as true statements will be less likely to be edited than untrue statements, so gradually over time Wikipedia will tend to be more and more likely to contain true statements. But eh, you might be right.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
This is a new concept to me. Maybe you'd like to write a wikipedia article on it.
But seriously, while I have heard people talk about such a thing, they haven't had much interest in making a case for such a thing, and the case generally amounts to "Well, it's plain common sense!"
My take on it is that the Register couldn't stand being overtaken as the Internet's leading purveyor of nonsense based on rumours contributed by readers, and so began a FUD campaign agains their competitor. Wikipedia is proof of the superiority of the Open Source approach in rapidly and inefficiently delivering trash to your computer.
If Wikipedia would just change it's tagline to say "Wikipedia: A maliable freeform database of community knowledge" It couldn't really be criticised by either side of the argument and it would remian equally useful.
Wikipedia is at least as reliable cable news. Seriously, if you only have ONE resource for information, at some point it will fail you. A diverse array of perspectives is good, esp. for cross-checking facts. "Beware the man of one book." said Saint Thomas Aquinas. I, for one, can't see any other overlords worth welcoming. Wiki ownz.
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
The problem with a compilation of reference material is that it's only as reliable as its least reliable entry. If any given thing you look up *might* be wrong then it's absolutely useless for actual work. The whole point of reference material and sourcing is the *prevention* of error propagation in intellectual discourse.
Introducing an error-prone reference compilation is like validating your code with a magic eight ball.
It's pretty simple really. Some people are _really_ afraid of the wild. My theory is they know they could not compete without an unfair advantage.
... Standards and Practices !
PenGun
Do What Now ???
The Register taking such open shots at Wikipedia is concerning to me. I do not object to The Register's right to do so, however, the support is hackneyed and poorly proofread. Check out this gem for example:
"Chase thought Wikipedia was a joke site and he made the edit to amuse a colleague. From which we conclude that the spoof site Uncyclopedia, which consists entirely of fictional entries, is doing far better than expected, and that Wikipedia has a long way to go to rid itself of the image that it's a massive, multiplayer shoot-em-up game, or MMORPG."
Umm. Yeah. Whoops! Might want to check such things. If the writer was trying to make some kind of editoral jab at the genres, it certainly wasn't clear as to why. Regardless, it distracted from the article. However, I shall move on:
"The blame goes here, the blame goes there - the blame goes anywhere, except Wikipedia itself. If there's a problem - well, the user must be stupid!"
That's downright insulting. Wikipedia provides the medium for user-submitted articles. An analogy immediately springs to mind here. The Department of Transportation provides the legal authority (medium) for our current forms of travel to exist and run as they are. Do you recall the last time the DOT was sued because a plane crashed out of the sky, or a tanker truck slipped on a highway due to poor maintenance after an ice storm? NO! The companies that provide the trucks and the planes, along with whomever they have operating them, are the ones that get sued, and are the only ones that have been liable in any sense. See how far you get pressing suit against the DOT when a TWA plane or whatever comes screaming from the sky. Lots of luck. The liable ones are the direct maintainers and the operators, the way it has always worked. Allowing Wikipedia to be held responsible for every idiot who posts falsehoods sets a DANGEROUS precedent which opens up other facets of our lives to the same treatment. The results are potentially disastrous.
NEXT!
"If you recall the utopian rhetoric that accompanied the advent of the public "internet" ten years ago, we were promised that unlimited access to the world's greatest "knowledge" was just around the corner. This hasn't happened, for reasons cited above, but now the public is now being exhorted to assume the posture of a citizen in an air raid, where every moving object might be a dangerous missile."
Wow. Just wow. Where did this utopian centralization of knowledge come from? I can't possibly imagine from a world where countless sources have been proven to lie to us about matters of economy, war, and more (politicans, reference books, etc). This kind of scary logic comes from dogmatic persons with draconian black and white views of either the world or many of the things in it. Knowledge is not absolute: it is not black and white. There is not one retelling of a single event or definition, but many. How absurd it is to ask a communications medium consisted of human beings to somehow become greater than human beings and defy all the traits of their constitution? Come on.
I could go on. Saying publication entails responsibility later in the article is silly too, again, because I challenge anyone to find one encyclopedia that is error free. Same goes for history textbooks. Lots of luck. How are those errors not defamatory to the persons whom are misrepresented?
*sigh* Progress is impeded by misguided perfectionists. It always will be.
The Crimson Dragon
Wikipedia is one of the Internet's foremost web sites disguised as something else that is fundamentally about promoting a Zionist view of the world, a view so skewed from the truth that it is at once disgusting and inaccurate, racist and phoney. Read about the Palestinian Exodus if you want to toss your cookies. There's enough propaganda in the world without Wikipedia. The world doesn't need Wikipedia and what it stands for.
Moran.
I can't begin to explain how furious I am over this situation.
I came home today and turned on the evening news, and saw nothing but one news show after the other bashing Wikipedia, and displaying complete ignorance towards both the technology and the purpose of the site.
I literally am left with a sick feeling in my stomach over some of the things I have seen. I have a hard time believing that most of the wikipedia hatred is related to any libel, but instead believe that there are many people who are horrified of the idea that information is being made available without any government censorship.
I feel so strongly that wikipedia, and the entire notion of community knowledge, is an important thing. I am trying to find anyway I can to help the cause.
I have registered www.support-wikipedia.com, although there is no content there yet. I have a hosting service available to host the site on as well. If there is anyone who feels they would like to join me in this effort, or contribute in any way, please contact me and let me know how you can help. I do not have an enormous amount of free time so any group effort will be appreciated.
I envision the site can contain facts and information to fight the effect of techno-ignorance, as well as information on the importance of freely available information. Maybe I can even setup a cafe-press account to sell "Support Wikipedia" t-shirt, with all proceeds donated to wikimedia.
To avoid posting my email publicly, please contact me via slashdot, or the feedback form on my personal website: http://www.xmilk.com/
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
It's a start, not an end, to research.
t he_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_cor rected_in_Wikipedia
Check all your facts. Then check them again. For me, any kind of encyclopedia is useful for bredth of knowledge, not depth of knowledge. Of course, accuracy matters to some degree, but its not really that big of a deal.
Briticanna errors, for example, are documented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_
That doesn't make it invalid; an encyclopedia is where you start your research. It gives you a couple nuggets of information that you can chew on. Sometimes, that's enough; if you are just idly looking for a bit of triva. Sometimes, its a good bit, and you'll get a tip that'll kickstart your actual research.
It's really dumb to nitpick at stuff like this.
The surprising part to this story, in my mind, is not that someone put a mischevous entry in wikipedia. It's obvious that's a flaw with wikipedia. The suprising part is that the reporter's employer fired him over a wikipedia entry.
Check your facts, people. An encyclopedia is the beginning of research, not the end of it. The more important the subject you are researching, the better you should check your facts.
Like for someone's employement history!
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
It's a starting point. You go to wikipedia, look up your topic (say Trolls, read to get a quick deffinition (familiarize yourself with the subject), and then hit the external links at the bottom of the page.
I say again, these links are what make wikipedia great.
Don't make wiki into something it's not: you'll only be disapointed.
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
I actually can't really disagree with you, but it is more of an "inciteful" remark than an insightful remark.
I've been trying to figure out why this issue is getting people so worked up (myself included), because it's all about some random website claiming to be a sort of encyclopedia. People claim to be experts all the time, and they lie or misinform out of ignorance; it's not a new phenomenon. Why then, do we have articles written like the one at the register, urging a call to arms over "moral responsibility?
It's all over one word: Encyclopedia. If wikipedia called itself the "Unreliable Encyclopedia", would this article have been written? I suppose the author would have had a hernia over what he considered the contradiction in terms. And yet, there do exist unreliable encyclopedias I suspect: those published in the 1950s do not contain up-to-date political and scientific information. They are unreliable, although I would not like to try and guess if they are more or less reliable than wikipedia.
I think that responsibility is the heart of this issue, and is why so many people get worked up about it. It's about who is to be assigned blame if wikipedia is inaccurate.
The author of the register article obviously wants the administrators of wikipedia to be held responsible, as if it was a top-down heirarchy. But it's not: it's more of a sort of p2p encyclopedia. It's not useful to blame wikipedia for being irresponsible any more than it is to blame gnutella for having illegal media on its network.
And the problem with attacking wikipedia and saying its not only useless, but it is harmful, is that it is not only attacking those people who spread disinformation. It is also attacking smart people who have a lot of worthwhile knowledge, and have carefully attempted to transfer this knowledge to an online medium that they knew people would use.
Now, maybe those people who write good articles for wikipedia shouldn't do so, because it'll only confuse people into thinking that wikipedia is more than a mountain of lies.
But I think that the answer lies in finding a way to hold individual wikipedia authors more accountable for their actions.
Hopefully as the internet grows up, people will go from thinking "I have to be careful in believing what I read on the internet" to "I have to be careful in what I say on the internet, because it represents me". We should start believing that it is a serious offense to spread disinformation on the internet, so that people will hold themselves to higher standards.
I say we need secure, historied, online personae.
-------
Incite and flee.
Check out this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_theorem
Of course, you can find this on other sites. And I did look at them in my effort to acquire more information on it when I was trying to learn about RSA encryption. But what makes Wikipedia do useful is that it's easy to search for this kind of information and it's so well-interconnected that even if you're a complete math idiot (which I feld like when reading that article), you can get the definitions you're after, find out what things are called, and then use that new information to make sense out of what you're reading from other sites.
I have found Wikipedia to be most useful in the areas where people are less likely to deface it. The less controvercial or more obscure topics. Math, biology, computer science, linguistics, and numerous other topics. Oh, and of course, if you want a massively detailed description of at Star Trek episode, it's right there.
You can't (or shouldn't) site Wikipedia in rigorous research. When I was taught research in high school, they strongly discouraged the use of ANY encyclopedia as source material, preferring that one find books and original research papers. Of course, the encyclopedia was the FIRST place I would look, but only as a means to get a clue about a topic and a sense for where to find other materials on it. There are actually better and more detailed web sites for reading about the areas I mentioned above. But Wikipedia is always the place I like to start to get my first clue. If Wikipedia is wrong, I'll find out (and probably correct the wikipedia article).
Having had my own wiki hacked quite a number of times before we switched over to TikiWiki, I'm fully aware of how easy it is to vandalize.
I love how you used the word "troll" four times by my count, and your perfectly reasonable comment was moderated as such. I wonder if this insightful comment of mine will be moderated insightful if I use the word insightful enough.
Eh, nevermind.
why? forty-two.
o?
The Wikipedia never was morally suspect, nor can it be. It has no soul to be damned nor arse to be kicked. You might as well blame the air for conveying libelous speech.
:v)
Vik
I wonder if the Register and Andy both realize that many of the same arguments they make against Wikipedia can also be made against heavily-biased media, like the New York Times or the Boston Globe, particularly lately. There are only two major differences:
1) Their contributors actually get paid.
2) Their acerbic contributions make the front page, though any corrections or retractions get buried somewhere between the obits and the funny pages, if they get printed at all.
I don't understand what the difference really is. Maybe because they're professionals, well then, it's okay.
Behold, the power of fleas...
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages on the internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants./wiki
I could only read halfway through page two of TFA because the article was so trollish.
Self appointed experts do not like knowledgeable peasants treading on their turf.
Congratulations. You have won today's WHOOSH! Award.
Seems like perfect karma for a half-smart misanthropic libertarian who really doesn't understand how the world works, or *will* work as the Net continues to mature, and proves it every time he opens his mouth.
btw, I've had to deal with this guy and his organization more than once, where they aptly proved they were more ignorant than enlightened. Wikipedia is beginning more and more to look like an unruly teenager's room, full of possibility, but mostly a mess.
Sure, Wikipedia has a semi-cool encyclopedia, but that's it. How anyone can take "open-sourcing" the news seriously is beyond me. What you end up with is something that's a copy of what's alreadyout there, or something that's so screwed it doesn't warrent even nearly the same attemtion as a tabloid - unless you're looking for a few laughs, which is mostly what Wikipedia has been serving up lately.
It seems to me that we have two separate issues to deal with. One is the theoretical limits of epistemology that Wikipedians must cite when defending errors in the Wikipedia. The other is the difference between an honest mistake and deliberately misleading content. The Register, I think, is correct to say that the former is no excuse for the latter.
So the real problem is not that the Wikipedia cannot achieve a higher level of factual rectitude. The real problem is that the Wikipedia has no facility to help novices establish the authority of an article of the Wikipedia. The best science can offer us [laypeople] is a bunch of journals that practice a complicated protocol of anonymous referees from a select bunch of supposed "experts" in the journal's field. If you want to don the scientist hat, you can always try to replicate the results of someone's journal article. I leave it as an exercise for the reader, but plenty of crap, for various reasons, has slipped through the journals' sacred peer reviews.
The real problem here is that the Wikipedia puports to be peer-reviewed, but each article has its subscribers, and it isn't clear whether an article has been tacitly approved by innumerable readers, or quietly corrupted out of salutary neglect. This ambiguity is the real failing of the Wikipedia, but it should be easily corrected by applying something similar to Slashdot Karma--just to show whether any editorial attention has affected any given article or not.
The real problem with the Register's scathing polemic is that it is just scathing polemic. The Wikipedia and the Register are apples and oranges. The authority of the Register's criticism cannot really be levelled with the Wikipedia, though its argument has a resounding us and them posture. It conveniently ignores the wealth of good content in math and science and that traditional encyclopedias get historical biography just as wrong (Christopher Columbus is a good candidate for this angle). So the punk teenager straw man at the conclusion of the Register article could just as well have been a fat, lazy armchair anthropologist to characterize the racist crap in the encyclopedias I grew up using.
In the end, I think the Wikipedians are right. "The price of liberty is vigilance." The Register is also right. This is one thing that will happen if we're asleep at the wheel. However fiery the iconoclasty makes you feel, do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? No. We take what we have and make it better.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
See the David Brandt article on wiki it seems more accurate than TheRegister articles..
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
I stopped reading it because of John Lettice.
Remarkable nobody commits to this over a job like the President of the United States, with this one OR the last (or any previous, it seems).
I like wikipedia, it's good for trivia and some technical information which usually turns out (somewhat) accurate. Using it for any sort of serious reference work is stupidity and the blame lies solely with the user.
The Register: A bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
So, as with the rest of Wikipedia, caveat emptor.
A lot of the articles take on a very "whiny" feel to them and generally, you dont get real information out of the story. Its hard to find a serious discussion.
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
Is that it? That isn't the way my grandfather or his friends told it. Funny how those things mutate over time...
Mod parent up though, that's good historical perspective and good advice.
But should we believe it?
The guy can't even spell "teh intarweb" correctly.
Reposting "Wikipedia has some errors and is therefore completely useless" every week is hardly a good use his time or The Register's money
Seeing as how these articles are then promptly posted on slashdot, bringing in thousands of visitors - and the advertising money that goes with it... Well, the accounting dept. might well disagree with you.
In the blogosphere, flamebait pays off. I wonder how this'll affect news in the future.
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
I am writing in reference to the article you penned on The Register entitled: "There's no Wikipedia entry for 'moral responsibility'." Though, admittedly, much of the article amounts to banal slander acutely reminiscent of that for which you decry, you do make some arguments which I feel the need to refute.
I hope I get this right:
* The users of Wikipedia are not responsible for the content they write. Wikipedia has a responsibility to present fair and accurate information.
* Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia because a good deal of the information is inaccurate. Instead, Wikipedia is a piece of 'spontaneous graffiti.' Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, it presents a slippery slope to unchecked libel and copyright infringement. If 'publication' by an 'encyclopedia' means anything, it means that you have to get those facts right.
* 'Publication' entails responsibility.
* Wikipedia cannot be trusted to present accurate information. It lacks 'social responsibility.'
I will try to address these in the order I presented them; however, in true Wikipedian fashion I may skip around a bit.
You claim that Wikipedia as an organization is in some way responsible for the information contained therein. How? Is eBay responsible for the legitimacy of the items they allow users to purchase? Is Google, then, responsible for the content of everything they index? The Wikimedia Foundation has created a framework for organizing information in the same manner, why are they held to a different standard than Google? Is it not acceptable to leave some things uncensored? As a responsible individual, I feel perfectly capable of making that decision because, as in all interpersonal transactions, caveat emptor (which Wikipedia tells me is Latin for 'let the buyer beware') applies. Wikipedia is a private organization, they have no public responsibility and they claim no public authority. The users who support the website edit freely and censor freely. In the end what wins out is consensus between private individuals. No one has a right to judge that objectively true or false.
Wikipedia is a source of libel and copyright infringement. More so than in the real world? Wikipedia has stated their policy on copyright infringement (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright), they have explained to users how to spot copyright infringement, and they also actively fight it to the limited degree with which they, as individuals, are able. Libel is another story. Wikipedia is a constantly evolving medium, it is not ever strictly 'published' hence there is no last word or definitive statement made in any of the articles. This is understood by Wikipedia users and is considered a necessary evil in order to attain the dynamism of content that Wikipedia is capable of.
What is this dynamism that I speak of you might wonder. Since the articles contained herein are freely editable, what we experience is a mini-internet. The true internet is just as dynamic: one can find breaking details on just about anything desired from the latest hurricane information to circa 1940 John Deere tractors to--you guessed it--libel and copyright infringed materials. Shall we call for the elimination or stricture of the internet? "Welcome to The Internet, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law..." What makes Wikipedia special is that it takes this experience and contains it within one search box and a standardized format all without limiting freedom of expression as most other websites do to some degree (be that due to policy or selectivity). It appears that Wikipedia's advantages present an ideal target for those against freedom of expression since the internet as a whole is a much more elusive target.
Back to the subject. Wikipedia is not an 'encyclopedia,' it is and has always been a 'free-content encyclopedia, written collaboratively by people from all around th
Hard science, math, bio, ancient history to some extent, geography and all the things you can easily fact check - Wiki is great for that kind of thing.
Any kind of soft issue, politics, religion, current history or current events, morality, etc... - Wiki is HORRIBLE for that kind of thing.
Wiki is great for verifiable things like science, math, ancient history, engineering, etc.
Wiki is horrible for soft things like politics, religion, morality, current events, etc.
Just understand the drivers and motives that people have for contributing to Wiki
They went on for a while about the Wikipedia touting itself as an accurate source of information (words to that effect).
This is close--I don't think that the wikipedia really touts itself as the final say in anything. It's generally pretty honest.
The problem may be that it is so DAMN GOOD that most people come to think of it as THE defacto information source, and maybe the register deems that general consensus as something that the Wikipedia itself "believes" or is doing to mislead us.
Perhaps the Wikipedia needs to replace it's first screen with a giant "DON'T PANIC" followed by a smaller "This is almost completely inaccurate as it is created mostly by untrained humans. Any resemblance to actual facts is purely coincidental".
I think they have most of the disclaimers somewhere, but are really only missing the "Don't Panic"
Okay, it's an online source of collective knowledge. That's a Good Thing (tm).
Whether it's accurate or not is completely up in the air. Many articles are read by many people, so hopefully errors are weeded out. Some articles are rarely read, and errors in those will stay for a long time before being noticed.
And then there are topical articles, which may just end up reflecting popular points of view rather than definitive information. That's also worthwhile, but it seems that Wikipedia can be used to 'shout down' dissent by editing articles you disagree with.
Who is responsible when an article is incorrect? The users apparently, but who are they? Just people on the Internet. You, me, that guy over there, people like us. So who is responsible for ensuring accuracy and quality? No-one, really. It's so distributed that there's no real focus, and the end result is the cry of "do it yourself!"
Well, I have a job, a fiancee, hobbies and many things I prefer doing rather than watch Wikipedia articles for changes. That answer screams out "broken process!" to me.
What happens if I make a change to an article and someone maliciously alters it again? Am I really supposed to continually edit an article, and if not, who do I apply to for a final version to be locked?
So what is Wikipedia? Well, it's not correct enough to be a solid source of information. It's not stable enough to be reliable. It's not actually a good source, because nothing you read may actually be correct!
It may be, but the prevalent feel around here is to take everything with a grain of salt. That's all well and good, but if you have a child researching something, how can they do that? Even as an adult, I recognise that while we add filters of perception to events, there is one thing that actually happened, and many accounts of it. Can't we at least find the objective case in the subjective perceptions?
Lastly, people say that Wikipedia is the starting point for research. Well, if it doesn't point you in the wrong direction it may be, but if I have to go to other more authoratative sources, then why bother with Wikipedia at all?
I won't use it, for those reasons. If I need an encyclopedia, I'll buy Encyclopedia Britannica which is a much more reliable source and actually has a solid process for reviewing information. It's a shame, because I like the idea, but I can't see where any value comes from with Wikipedia.
the person whom is seen as largely responsible for wikipedia (can't think of his name) was on npr the other day, basically saying that wikipedia is in its "beta" stage. once enough articles are solidified and reviewed, they will be "locked" into the official release, which is how much OSS works, IIUC.
/. smearing, say, bill gates? would the press at large be screaming out for "moral responsibility" from /.?
how hard is this to grasp? i suppose they would do good to make this known on the home page, but while everyone is calling for "moral responsibility" from wikipedia, what about "individual responsibility" for each person using it?
the attack on the politician is also a non issue. what would happen if someone posted a post on
and why isn't an email to the editors to please remove said content (assuming it is complied with) not enough?
wikipedia is an awesome phenomenon no matter how you slice it, warts and all. anyone who wants to naysay with, "there are errors, and no way to control content" and the like are missing the forest for the trees.
cheers,
mr c
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - R. Feynman
And yet this one of the most commonly accepted beliefs regarding Wikipedia. Some people on Slashdot alone have gone so far as to claim that Wikipedia is public domain and have gotten modded up for it.
Its no longer about whether or not the government can control the information, its now a matter of whos controlling the spread of disinformation. If 'anyone can edit' entries, who's monitoring the monitors? At least with the government its this big huge target we can all see and gang up against. With Wikipedia, we're staring at a bunch of easily masked IP addresses, false user ID info and the complete anonymity (for anyone determined) of the internet. I'd take the lesser of two evils and stick with the big, mean, elitist, capitalist run governments.
As I read the article .. yes you read that right..
I couldn't keep the question from my mind : Is Jon Katz ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Katz ) now writing under a pseudonym?
Any excuse to Bash Bush.
Absolutely, he's a troll. I don't read The Register so often that I knew who he was, and AFAIK I've never read one of his pieces (of feces?) before, but now that I know who he is and have read one, I shan't be reading The Reg again while he works there.
:)
Was the article that touched off this whole controversy shameful, a bad joke gone worse, and something that points to a known flaw in *all* wikis? Absolutely. And it's a problem Wikipedia has wrestled with and continues to wrestle with. It's not like they don't *try* to deal with his and have a balance and a self-correcting system. But those things are hard to do, and Wikipedia is still young, really. On the other hand, is most of what Orlowsku wrote just a vicious, spiteful, one-sided attack which rates a few steps below diarrhea on the periodic table of undesirable substances? Absolutely. It's so abolutely vitriolic that it's easy to believe jealously over not having invented something as popular, useful, and generally reliable as Wikipedia could be a motivating factor.
It was noted that Wikipedia is a good reference for physics. It's also a good reference for naval history, one of my interests. Rather than even attempt to write a balanced article showing where there are problems with a resource that is excellent in many ways, he chose to just spew. His name should not be used in the same sentence as the word "journalist."
Also, since you mentioned ad hominem attacks, the OP did not make any ad hominem attacks. He called Orlowsku a troll and a whiner. Having just read the entire FA myself, those seem to me pretty accurate. However, neither is an ad hominem attack. Here is an ad hominem attack:
"I heard that Orlowsku supports greater accountability for wikis, but I think he's a troll and a whiner, therefore that must be utter and complete rubbish."
Calling him a troll and a whiner is just a personal attack, but it is not an ad hominem (although ad hominems can, and often do, include personal attacks).
If you want to know more about ad hominem, you might want to look it up on, well, Wikipedia
See this new media is very unreliable!! Wikipedia ha!
D. Rather
Wikipedia's purpose isn't supposed to be a primary source, or even detailed. It's just sort of a supplement, or a tool to get a general background on a subject before doing other research, or accompanying it.
500 Server Error
Error: Cannot update article 'freespeech'. Too many pending updates. Please try again later.
I suspect that the battle over Wikipedia is really a debate over the future of cognitive authority in general. All of the publishing industry has a vested interest in making sure that they stay authoritative. This is combined with the fact that many publishers (disclaimer: I work for a publisher) gear the material around what's marketable. This practice is so entrenched in publishing now, I don't think publishers even see what's wrong with it. I think in a battle between truth and money, money wins.
Wikipedia may have some unique challenges, but at least they are free from this problem.
This is just plain bullshit.
You missed the point. The point was that (for most people) there are degrees of skepticism. You can't simply be a skeptic of everything. Even your grandfather, I think, would agree.
People instinctively trust some sources more than others. A well-known, well-regarded encyclopedia where the publishers/editors/etc. are held accountable can be trusted to a fairly high degree. People you respect (say, your grandfather?) are trusted more than the random guy on the street.
The author's point is that "don't trust anything" is not a reasonable way of living. If you went around being as skeptical of everything as you should be of Wikipedia, you would be a paranoid mess.
But enough of that. What I wish to ask is: does The Register have an editor? The writing in that article was god-awful. It's a bunch of rambling and musing and, yes, whining, and all in short, choppy half-paragraphs of long sentences that read like stream-of-consciousness. Spelling is also fun. What's "fulfil"? "grafitti"?The Register also seems to think that Wikipedia is based in Britain, and thus subject to Britian's ludicrous
... do you say that objectively?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
"This defense firmly puts the blame on the reader, for being so stupid as to take the words at face value. Silly you, for believing us, they say."
Yes. He is correct. Despite his sarcasm, users ARE silly for believing things at face value. Just because a work is published does NOT make it the definitive source for all accurate knowledge. How many scientific findings have been published, and later discovered to be inaccurate.
He seems to think that because a work is put to paper that is must have more accuracy than a work such as wikipedia. I challenge this: Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia
Wikipedia has the opportunity to be both free and more accurate than any printed work. Even an encyclopedia, devoting resources to topics they are not experts in get things wrong, such as some of the items on the list above. Wikipedia gives those out there directly working on it -- Subject Matter Experts -- to contribute their knowledge for others to share.
In regards to the fears of lawsuits, obviously due diligence would be given to review the content of articles before put to paper and widely distributed. What more can be asked for? This is the same thing that Britannica does.
Until Wikipedia is making some claim to take authority over content -- they are just like the post office, the telephone company, or xerox. They are providing a service. Just as Xerox is not responsible for people violating copyright law with their copiers, Wikipedia is not responsible for the accuracy of information on their site. If you ask me, the rules, regulations and procedures they have come up with are an amazing effort at being open to respecting others, and cooperating with them. Similar to the post office working with police to track packages.
I think something commonly being overlooked here is -- Who exactly was affected by this article? The article apparently wasn't link to from other pages -- meaning that it wasn't seeing much attention, which is why it hadn't been changed. Who cares if it was there for months, if only 5 people saw it, was he really severely hurt by this? When he came across it, fix it, move on. Hes actually created a much larger problem by bringing so much attention to this.
May this post be indexed by spiders, and archived for all to see as my Internet epitaph.
That one went right over your head, did it?
What if you killed the kinder more painfully and publicly?
I said this the other day, but I think it bears repeating:
Not to be trite, but how much can you really complain about a free resource? You get what you pay for. I use Wikipedia all the time to research things and learn about new areas of interest, but I know full well both its provenance and its accuracy.
If you want accuracy, either pay for a resource you trust or do the research yourself. If you want unbiased facts, it solely depends on what you think unbiased means. Everything from the Encyclopedia Brittanica to the Oxford English dictionary has been accused of bias. Why would you think that something that is maintained by volunteers on the internet wouldn't be subject to abuse, scandal, spam, and outrage?
You can go anywhere on the internet for your information. Why do you keep going back to Wikipedia? Becuase it fills a need. If you don't like, vote with your "feet" and go somewhwere else. Wikipedia has exactly the authority you imbue it with.
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." -Mark Twain
And that's their job, goddamit! How dare Jimbo encroach on their territory?
Demarcation, comrades!
(Still, at least Wikipedia! Doesn't! Milk! Poor! Jokes! For! Long! After! They! Were! Only! Marginally! Funny! In! The! First! Place!)
I don't know... it worked pretty well when I tried it.
If you understand how Wikipedia works, you realize that you must take every single word printed on the site with a grain of salt and double check the facts somewhere else. It might be nice for winning an argument with your nerd friends over something trivial, but you should never use wikipedia as a place for genuine information (as for a research paper), especially on recent (past few decades) historical events.
What the heck, I for sure don't trust wikipedia much, but still a lot more than some popular news sites.
yeah, i just wish someone would change the wikipedia article on the swastika
i mean it says that it was called the swastika by guys in germany after borrowing it from other cultures
it implies that they also called it that and they didn't . i forget what so someone more informed hint hint
wikipedia rules, register can submit their complaints in a complaint box instead of dickwagging
I always imagined Wikipedia to be a great hall filled with a thousand of the top experts in every aspect of human civilization. Their brains filled with knowledge to the point when one more fact would make their heads explode like microwaved eggs.
In another equally great but not as good-smelling hall right next to the first one are a thousand monkeys typing on a thousand computers.
As one walks along a dark corridor connecting the two halls, there is a small room on the right between the water cooler and the snack bar, where five guys decide what the facts should be.
Of course, the world will never see NBC Dateline truly questioning what is said on FOX News, nor will the New York Times truly question the reporting of the Washington Post.
Of course they won't. That's because they're all wildly inaccurate and the main reason they don't question each other very often is a) they are in direct competition unlike Register vs Wikipedia, b) they do the same thing and they'll accomplish nothing by challenging what is being said except bring people's attention to the fact that TV is usually inaccurate, and c) they're constantly 1984ish "rectifying" what they report each day by morphing the "facts".
If everyone took a few notes about stories and then watched reporting on the same issue again a few days later, far fewer people would believe ANYTHING that is said by TV News networks. They'd notice facts are constantly revised and the organizations absolutely will not ever have the scrolling text say (for example) "sorry, almost every single bit of crap we reported about Hurricane Katrina was wrong".
Instead, they'll just keep on reporting slightly changed new "facts" to replace yesterday's "facts".
This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
Where his journalism degree is from is one of the least important things as far as I'm concerned. I'd like to know what his experience is. For instance, a reporter writing science stories. What kind of science background does he have? Reporters should also cite sources. What press release are they copying? Scientific papers? The only time they ever do this is for interviews.
Wikipedia has a references section. If you have reason to doubt the information on the page, check the reference. If it's not referenced, well, that's an excellent reason for doubt, and not just on Wikipedia.
i mean seriously -- given the choice between the internet in general, and wikipedia... which information is better organized, more likely to be peer reviewed, less likely to be biased, more up-to-date, and basically more trustworthy?
... given the choice between Wikipedia in general, and the Bush administration's press releases and the CIA, which is more trustworthy?
.. all i can say is that Wikipedia might do well to more prominently display a note that "wikipedia is written, often quickly, by the same old people you find all over the internet -- but generally written by The Smart Ones. we apologize in advance for the lamerz."
i think my vote would have to go with wikipedia-
that being said...
flamebait? maybe.. but
at least with Wikipedia you can say that when bad information gets out there, it's not because the people at the top have an agenda and did it on purpose. Everybody understands the deficiencies of Wikipedia -- that troublemakers or ignorant people are able to screw it up...
Yet in the end, that register article is pretty pointless. With the two pages of his trolling removed, Andrew Orlowski's complaint sums up as "the 'pedia' suffix some how implies to my mind that Wikipedia must be infallible -- and it isn't".
but pedia simply means "education". encyclopedia means "general education"
wikipedia is said to mean "quick - education"
this does suggest to me that the 'education' you're getting shouldn't be your last stop when researching a paper or article....
speaking of that, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Orlowski has his own wiki article.
You're making a very basic mistake that most Wikipedia zealots make over and over--equating the quality of an article with the likelihood of containing true statements.
This is fundamentally misguided, because it leaves out a whole set of issues about identifying the target audience of an article, the purposes they have when they consult the article, and how well the article serves those purposes. No matter what proportion of statements within an article are true, that is of very little use if the article is not actually helpful, which it may not be for many reasons: it may fail to be well organized, it may fail to convey the basic ideas of a topic, etc.
To put it more crudely: a lot of Wikipedia "articles" read like a disorganized shopping list of random facts about their topic put together by a bunch of people who never seriously tried to coordinate, and just idly added individual "true statements" to an article, without any concern for its organization or actual usefulness. They read like that because, well, that's exactly what they are. (And the worst part is that Wikipedia makes the people who do this feel good about what great guys they are to "contribute" their "knowledge" for the greater good...)
But I digress. Bringing in the idea that the quality of an article has to do with how well it serves its target audience, I believe, leads to an uncommon conclusion: since there is no effectively enforced standard about what's the target audience and use for any given Wikipedia article, it follows that there is no way to judge the quality of Wikipedia articles. A Wikipedia article is of high quality to the extent that it meets its intended use. But what is that intended use? God knows.
PS another interesting observation about equating quality with proportion of truths: it is in fact very often the case that to explain a topic to a beginner, the most effective way to do it is by telling them things that you actually don't believe are true, and are ready to admit as such. Why? Because regardless of their truth, they are an exemplar application of the fundamental ideas of the topic. The really important thing that distinguishes an expert in a topic is not the set of facts they believe to be true about it (which in fact might change very often), but the way they think about the topic. Correspondingly, an expert's errors can actually be extremely instructive material, even uncorrected. The "fact accumulation" idea just fails to distinguish what's important in a topic from what's not, and as such, reflects a lack of understanding.
Are you adequate?
Wikipedia says 'Wikipedia (pronounced as [wikipidi.] or [wki-], also [-]) is a multi-lingual Web-based free-content encyclopedia.'. This is the wrong claim. The Wikipedians have great a heck of a job (scnr), there are many articles that put other encyclopedias to shame, but Wikipedia is not yet an encyclopedia.
The wiki principles made it possible to write millions of articles in 100 languages or so. But this is only one step. You have to take another step. For example: A German publisher sells a book series based on wikipedia contents called 'WikiPress'. They could do this,, but the contents had to be editored first. (Not by a community or 'wikipediators' but by professional editors.) This has to be done with the whole wikipedia.
The time of collecting information is nearly done. Now it is the time of validating information. This can be done by paid professionals or by a community of professionals. But it can't be done in the wikipedia yet. Too many vandalism destroys the work flow, too less sources are actually given, too much unwritten rules and misunderstandings seem to be more important than the facts.
Unfortunately: the similarity goes further: If you trust in Wikipedia too much you can be eaten by the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal...
People will find that the scenario they have prepared for isn't exactly what they expected. They will arm against the government and discover they need that for protection against the well armed citizens who have armed against the government who are now taking potshots at anything that moves.
There is no correct answer here. That's why the issue is so contentious.
To be unarmed against a potentially scarey govt is unaccable
To have nutty jittery neighbors armed to the teeth is just as scarey.
Can't win either way.
Orlowski writes "Now a picture of the body behind the "Hive Mind" of "collective intelligence" begins to take shape.
He's 14, he's got acne, he's got a lot of problems with authority ... and he's got an encyclopedia on dar interweb."
The guy is trolling. It really doesn't mater if you agree with him or not, this comment is flamebait, pure and simple.
I am not sure where you got the troll equals terrorist meme from. It doesn't ring true for me. (Perhaps I'm a drone of "the hive mind"?)
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
If Wikipedia is anything like the Wikis I've dealt with through work, then it's a black hole used to document stuff you do; with the idea that people will come and see it but ultimately they don't. ;)
No I'm not trolling.
The definition of irony:
1. Slashdot vet complains about overuse of "troll" label, and is modded troll.
-Glitch "We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." - Linus Torvalds
Wiki seems to me to be a great way to split humans into two groups. Hippies in one group, peace love and trust, man. Nazis in the other - alles in ordnung!
I know where I'd rather be sorted.
Given that I was dumb enough to fall for a bit Register flamebait recently, I should hope I wouldn't fall for another one so soon again. You know the famous Bush saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on you" ;-). What the Register and its scummy snotrag excuses for journalists are doing is almost as old as the printing press in the UK: writing inflammatory articles explicitly because some fuckhead here at Slashdot will link to it and thereby get the Register loads of pageviews that it doesn't deserve.
The Register in general and Andrew Orlowski in particular don't give a flying fuck about bothering to stick to any standards of journalism, and actually checking up on the facts behind any story would be a sin for the Register. I remember Orlowski doing the same flamebait stuff with OSX when it was new and there have been a steady trickle of wildly innacurate Mac/OSX stories over the years (take a look at their original predictions for the flatpanel iMac).
They simply don't care. The only redeeming point about the Register and bum fucks like Orlowski is that they are equally innacurate and inflammatory about anything they write.
Another unfair flatulent (i.e., full of gas) attack against a great resource. Crybaby Siegenthaler suffered no real damage from the momentary entry about him. The Wikipedia as a whole has high quality--that should be good enough for everybody. Attacks on it on most bases have no value as far as I'm concerned *because* I and many others get so much value out of it.
To assign "moral responsibility" to a collective authorship of a general reference is nonsensical. It's like assigning "moral responsibility" to every little thing we say or think--it's anti-freedom.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
I don't want to read any further, I assume the rest of the article is equally-well researched. Obviously, a MMORPG can't be a "shoot-em-up" game, where would the acronym's letters come from? It's Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game, an entirely diffent kind of game.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
I think it was brilliant of wikipedists to revise moral responsibility with that long boring drawn out sentence like this as when it keeps going maybe now i should stop.
Everyone will start reading that and get bored. Some will shoot themselves.
I'll make you a deal. You pray to God for help and I'll stop the moment he shows up.
Of course they keep him on; he represents income. If you don't like it, don't read him and don't post links to him on Slashdot. You're just falling for his act.
I think you have missed the point.
I think it's obvious that it's not worth the paper. I submit that you have never even attempted to ask for authorship information from an encyclopedia. I had a physics science project I failed in GRADE SCHOOL. This was primarily due to a failure to make the correct distinction between "potential" and "kinetic" energy. I was able to bring out the physical source. The project was given a revised grade after the instructor contacted the publisher who admitted it was a known misprint.
I think you can safely imagine that medical encyclopedias are fairly well documented, 30 years later (today). After 2 open heart surgeries and countless other illnesses encountered, I know so. My current views are based on my logical assumptions and experiences. YMMV.
I believe this is because, this rev. info is just as unreliable (in terms of determining accuracy or good judgement in deciding relevant content) as any single article currently displayed in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is now the only accurate word to describe this type of unwitting and part-time collaboration. An encyclopedia, it is not.
US media has been losing much of it's clout due to corrupting and scandal involving deliberate inaccuracy. Short answer, the news doesn't state the truth, but what their agents hear or see or what agenda they wish to promote. Attempts at stating facts of discovery (like the falsified Bush military records) have continued to be a sore spot, even with accountability.
Given the rate of decline in newspaper subscriptions in metropolitan areas, look for it on your handheld in the next 10 years. It will look a lot like network news looks. Newspapers can be queried for sources in most cases. The sources are often quoted.
Finally, are there sources of information that state they are authoritative, with a guarantee of accuracy? Why yes there is. Unfortunately, there are none that guarantee accuracy AND cover anything more than a very specific topic. (statistics on Federal wage rates, ballots, Grants, operating tolerances of a 1947 Chevy engine mount, etc.) I believe what you intended to ask was, "Is there a self-proclaimed authoritative source of general information?" Nope. You will find all publications (physical and virtual) cleverly have been reworded since, I presume the 1980's, to reflect the nebulous nature of "truth". Even Britannica now claims to be a "standard for reference" rather than a source of facts.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Well, with Andy's "access" and privilege to publish, I must assume he's getting a bit edgy about his future footing... but, the position he's championing is dangerously close to this: The Digital Imprimitur
The Wikipedia changed their name to Wikipaedia?
Well, he's not actually a troll, as has already been pointed out. His article was very valid in every point it made about wikipedia. His point is proven about the "wiki-fiddlers" by all the inflammatory replies he gets on slashdot shouting: "TROLL!". It seems a lot of the people most passionate about wikipedia are also some of the most stubborn, close-minded net users out there, who can't bear to hear anything that would tarnish their baby.
:(
The thing that seems most obvious is that why would these "wiki-fiddlers" get so annoyed if what Andrew was writing wasn't true? They would simply laugh it off, or come up with constructive arguments. But no, they simply shout "TROLL, he doesnt know what hes talking about, he stupid yayayaya".
The truth hurts
Isn't the basic problem with Wikipedia the fact that the more obscure or complex a subject is, the more likely I am to want to look something up about it (I'm less likely to look up something I already know). But the more obscure subjects are the very subjects which have fewer people capable of correcting mistakes in the article and are therefore more vulnerable to subtle incorrect edits.
How are you speak up against established media, you wiki bastards! How dare you be so immoral!
The Register will define what is moral and what is not, and clearly Wiki is not! You have been warned.
In a crunch I'll use Wikipedia to get a general idea of some concept I'm lacking if I don't have time to do proper research. Even then I take what's there w/ a grain of salt. Never[ever] would I use it as a genuine reference tool.
I appreciate the philosophy behind Wikipedia, I approach it the same way I do many political ideals, "in a perfect world..."
I have been reading The Register since just about day one. While I disagree w/ a number of their stances on issues relating to technology in society and popular culture, I fully agree with their stance on Wikipedia today. Wikipedia is (for a large part) a load of bollocks. Harmless bollocks, that was, until a number of other somewhat reputable sites like About.com started publishing the content as verbatim fact. Now, I have students in college classes defending positions based on Wikipedia citations. In such cases an argument for research laziness is due, but laziness aside, the designation by popular media of Wikipedia as an authoritative source, an encyclopedia, gives it an undeserved cache of respect.
Every time I hear some one say some grand thing about the community promise of Wikipedia I am continually reminded of something about a million monkeys at a million typewriters...
I'm happy to see a single human being on /. knows what an ad hominem attack really is.
Ah, the good old argument that if people get upset about argument A, it must be true. Did you really think that would fly? :)
Anyway, wikipedia is the best source for information in blank areas that I know. That fact alone means that I, indeed, do not care what some 3rd-rate, advert-financed tabloid of dubious credibility has to say about it ;)
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
exactly !
Wikipedia is not much different than searching with Google. What you get is up to your own scrutiny.
Is this so difficult to understand ?
Hopefully the current outcry will help people understand this.
I think Wikipedia should get rid of the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". It is not a free alternative to an encyclopedia, at most it is an encyclopedic look-alike. They should use "Wikipedia is a wikipedia" as their slogan.
Spiegel Online has a funny cartoon on Wikipedia by Jamiri.
But wikipedia is an encyclopedia going by all definitions of the word I could find. People trust untrustable sources all the time (e.g, newpapers, teachers, salesmen). That does not make the source worthless.
If you are a teacher in research, I surely hope that you teach them that any encyclopedia is worthless as a source to cite. Though I do realize that "research" means altogether different things in the "hard" sciences and the "soft" sciences, I know that encycleopedias are at best untrustworthy source for any specialized information. Wikipedia actually has a better track record with me there, going by my occasional look up in some area of my own expertise (General Topology, you can search for my master degree if you care, though it is in Danish).
I doubt anyone is culpable for making a mistake while writing any encyclopedia or other material. At worst, they might loose their job, I suppose. As for incentive, the incentive for correcting the wiki is the same as writing it in the first place. I am not sure what the incentive for updating a written encycleopedia is, and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't happen, but I do know that such updates would seldom or never make it out to the shelves, and even if it did make it, would probably be lost as an appendix or similar. As for qualified --- who knows who gets the best qualified person(s) to write the article? As I said, in my (very small) area, wikipedia is more accurate and a lot more comprehensive than the printed encycleopedias I have seen. I do realize that my area is hardly controversial with personal attacks etc.
I can hardly believe a person with an acedemical background would resort to that sort of argument. Not every? I would be extremely surprised if 10% of the non-stub articles are more inaccurate than they printed brethren. I recall seeing some numbers on this, but I can't recall them offhand. And what is that "wikipedia is just as flawed as slashdot"? That sort of argument should be below one such as yourself. If you have issues with wikipedia or slashdot, point to concrete errors with either instead of making cheap retorics.
I won't even quote the last line.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
Why didn't John Seigenthaler edit his own page with correct information? Instead of sueing wikipedia he could have just added the "correct" information himself. Isn't that the point of wikipedia? What don't I understand here?
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
There is really no good reason why the media should care about a "scandal" at Wikipedia. However, there is a reason (i.e. it's not a good one). The media wants more than anything to be the source of all definitions of society. The media does not like people being able to self-determine what things mean to themselves. In the US, for example, abortion is ALWAYS referred to in the (liberal) media as a "medical procedure." In a recent CNN article about an abortion court case, the author of the article used the term "medical procedure" no fewer than three times, which is an obvious attempt to skew public opinion through repetition. I'm not injecting my own opinions about abortion here, but just trying to point out that the author could just as easily have used the term "infant murder" in place of "medical procedure" in order to advance a different agenda.
Media does not want the general population to have a non-media-controlled source of information and reference. One who controls information has power, and wikipedia takes away power from the Media. Now, the reason the media has its panties in a bunch about this "scandal" is because they will jump on any opportunity to slander and discredit those whose ideas and institutions they oppose. I am certain this is not the only case of alleged libel or slander on wikipedia, but it is a convenient, high-profile case that the media opponents can exploit to advance their own agenda, which is really nothing more than control of information, and therefore control of society.
Whilst I think there is some truth in what you say, I also think that a certain amount of pointing and shouting - whining, even - might be necessary to get the Wiki devotees to acknowledge more publicly the undoubted problems with the Wikipaedia and start to address them.
Wikipedia now has an article about "Moral Responsibility". The problem is, Wikipedia still has no moral responsibility and doesn't intend to have it, as evidenced by this discussion here.
How this comment could be moded insightful is beyond me.
Knowledge is always subjective:
Hence "objectivity within specific realms of knowledge" makes no sense.
Knowledge is mental image - if You think you can be objective with it, you are deluding yourself.
Ad "Academic authority":
Academic authority is not tested by real career - only by academic career, hence it is a house of cards (how nicely said - academics supporting each other!).And now people are trying to use slander and legal tactics to damage them, a non-profit, free online resource, made up of volunteers. Humanity doesn't get any lower than that.
It's hilarious, or not; Wikipedia's critics are exactly what they claim to oppose, unaccountable slanderous bastards.
Sorry for the rant, people who are so bent on controlling other people just really piss me off.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The argument beneath the complaint (and it's an old one) goes like this:
I believe you have provided something that I want, and I would like you to continue to provide it.
Therefore, I place you in a position of authority over me. I hand any responsibiltiy for my well being in this regard (whatever it was I think you supplied) over to you. I will no longer accept any accountability for a failure of my needs to be met. I will call you to account in the public forum (or, in many cases, in front of a judge) when these needs are not met.
In the case of wikipedia, the commodity supplied is knowledge, and the responsibility abdicated is that of critical thought.
Seems to me that the complainant could benefit by beginning to apply personal responsibility in the place of demanding that some authority accept moral responsibility for his well being.
Don't think that attitude is limited to people who are "subjects" rather than "citizens", either. Laziness, entitlement, and whining are freely practiced everywhere.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
There are encyclopaedias that are specific to subjects, which are then certified to be quoted for research purposes. The direction to create a reliable information resource from Wikipedia would be quite easy and simple. The content is published under a "Free Document License", so anyone should be able to take this content, validate it and put up a more static or moderated source of information that can be cited with credibility assured by an authority for that particular instance taken. As for resources, All the universities complaining about their students citing Wikipedia can actually help out in validating and creating a content resource that can be cited.
I really find this debate of whether Wikipedia can be cited in papers and research work pointless as the content is dynamic and every student of research knows that citations have to specify the source accurately. If a journal/article is cited, the edition, author and other details are provided to ensure that a different work is not confused with. Comparing this with the way the Linux Kernel is moderated and other Open Source projects that go unmoderated and try to survive due to user interest, its easy to see that collaboration without moderation has a higher likelihood of being unreliable (in software, buggy.) I don't see individual's moral responsibility coming in the way. Further most "Open/Free/Libre" content is contributed by about 10% of the actual populace that consumes it. Now where's the moral guardian out there against leeching? I don't see everyone whining because not more than 10% of the user community would be contributing to a project such as Wikipedia (either the engine, or the content.)
No Greater Friend, No Greater Enemy! (Lucius Cornelius Sulla)
You, and the original author, are totally wrong. Noone on the opposing side is saying you should be skeptical of everything to the same degree, but rather, you have to fucking figure out just how skeptical you should be of any given source.
It's like fucking preschool. Everyone needs someone to hold their fucking hand. Take some fucking responsibility, judge information for your self. As soon as you start trusting any source too much, that source has power over you. That DOES NOT MEAN that you can't trust some sources more than others. YOU have to be the judge of that, however.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Stabby McPenis for the win!
Personally, I suspect that Wikipedia's method is a somewhat viable way to shuffle out the stupids, as true statements will be less likely to be edited than untrue statements, so gradually over time Wikipedia will tend to be more and more likely to contain true statements.
It would be nice to think so, but I suspect rather the opposite is true. The most competent are likely to contribute, by writing or revising, only occasionally -- because most of their energies will be devoted elsewhere in their lives and careers. It is the cranks and fools who seem to have almost limitless energy to devote to propagating their particular obsessions; thus, over time, Wikipedia will probably tend to be less and less reliable.
That's the sound of TFA's point, missing you by a couple of miles.
Wheredoes responsability fit in everything you've mentioned? Yes, an open wiki is an interesting and useful project. But as long as nobody assumes responsability it's just a game which sometimes goes horribly wrong.
Seigenthaler warned about the kind of wrap Wikipedia will take come next US elections. But zealots of course still keep yapping their mouths happily without caring that this wonderful project they like so much may be the very pretext for more draconic laws limiting freedom of expression.
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
I am not sure where you got the troll equals terrorist meme from. It doesn't ring true for me.
It works for me. He claimed that "troll" was being used the same way American and British politicians use "terrorist". In his chosen example, "troll" was being used correctly, which makes his comparison an accurate one.
Yes, damage control, by controlling other people.
but if I disagree with some whacked out wiki-fiddler my information (if there is any) could very easily be altered to harm my chances for success in the REAL world.
You still have the same recourse you've always had against slander and libel, file a lawsuit. It may be hard now, in this day and age where anyone can post anything, *anywhere* on the Internet(ie. NOT JUST WIKIPEDIA). But that's life. Deal with it.
Oh, but you'll claim that because it's on Wikipedia, it's more damaging. Bullshit. Unless you're famous, very, very few people will read the entry about you. The damage will be just as limited as if they posted it on, hmmm, say, Slashdot, or anywhere else on the Web.
I guess my point is, the complaints leveled against Wikipedia apply not to Wikipedia, specifically, but to the whole of the Internet. So, the logical conclusion, by the logic of those who would attempt to force Wikipedia to make changes, would be to forcefully censor the whole of the Internet, for "damage control."
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Don't touch my Willie, I don't know you that well
Help yourself to some Haggard or some Jones; hell Lord, anybody else
I don't know what you've heard, I ain't that kind of guy
So don't touch my Willie, we'll get along just fine
Why would you think that?
I thought the general notion was that information "wants" to be free. Wikipedia is free information. It may not be the best, most reliable, highest quality information, but it's free. Certified quality and reliability has to be paid for, as somebody else has to invest in the certification.
Nobody is forcing you to believe in the absolute truth of the information on Wikipedia. Nobody is taking anything from you on false premises with Wikipedia. So why the controversy? You got what you paid for with Wikipedia. How can you gripe that you didn't get more?
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
That Orlowski has gone off on one isn't actually very surprising. Andrew Orlowski is an Internet journalist who gets paid to write on (and about) the Internet. He writes for The Register, a British website which has developed a reputation for edgy and controversial journalism. It lives not only by reporting on the ephemeral phenomena the Internet throws up, but also by attacking the emerging centres of power of the information age. Andrew Orlowski is, on occasion, just as attacking of Oracle, of Microsoft and of Google as he now is of Wikipedia.
A quick Google (if you'll excuse me, Mr Orlowski) is sufficient to demonstrate that Mr Orlowski is a good thing. He puts people's backs up. The first page of hits shows us
This gives us a feel for Orlowski's standing in the Internet community: of his reputation. Orlowski is a gadfly. Someone who winds up so many people can't be all bad; particularly when you consider who he winds up. We need journalists prepared to confront the new powerful.
And the person behind Wikipedia, James Wales (he'd rather I called him 'Jimmy' or 'Jimbo' - so much more cuddly, don't you know?) is an unlikely hero. He made his first fortune as a futures trader, but then went into the Internet porn business, and also ran websites which 'scraped' content from other websites and added advertising, using their content under his branding to drive revenue into his pocket.
Futures trading is considered respectable under capitalism; and I am in no position to criticise people who create porn. But content stealing is sleazy in anyone's book (ironically, Wikipedia itself must now be the most screen-scraped site on the Internet).
Furthermore, it's easy to paint Wales as an egotist. Again, I'm in no position to criticise someone who has his own website, or runs his own 'blog' (hideous neologism). But Wikipedia has an entry on Wales, as does WikiMedia, as does WikiQuote... Wales repeatedly describes himself as the 'founder' of Wikipedia, and emphasises his own role to the exclusion of all others:
There seems no doubt that the money behind Wikipedia is his. But he seems to find it easy to forget the contribution of (e.g.) Larry Sanger, who apparently did most of the work and seems to have done a lot of the creative thinking.
And, of course, Wikipedia does, at present, have a problem. It is too easy for ill-intentioned or merely mindlessly destructive people to edit articles on Wikipedia, as the Seigenthaler incident amply demonstrates. And in the particular (rather unusual) circumstances of the Seigenthaler incident, where the saboteur edited the article from a machine on a fixed IP address, Orlowski is correct in observing that requiring editors to log in, rather than showing their IP address, actually reduces transparency.
Nevertheless, Orlowski is wrong to attack Wikipedia. Wikipedia is far more than the ego vehicle of James Wales. It is an experiment. It is new. It has got teething troubles. This is normal. It is nevertheless at the very least a most interesting experiment, and it is also, already, a very useful resource - albeit one which should be used with some caution.
In mounting a defence of Wikipedia I will start with the main thrust of Orlowski's recent article, and go on to m
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Mike "Crazy Brit" Magee
Come on, that's got to be a fake name. Magee is one of the oldest fake last names around. Started by Chester "Dangerously Cheesy" Magee.
Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story
So- when the Enclopedia you purchased becomes out of date the publisher drops a new edition on your doorstep? No- I think not. You go out and buy a new copy. You don't know if it's anymore accurate or reliable than the old copy until YOU fact check.
Ever read an article in the popular press or an encylopedia on a topic you know a lot about? Remember feeling that the author really didn't know what they were talking about? I'm not talking here about propaganda generated to incite violence or slander someone. I'm discussing factual inacccuracies caused by ignorance or a developing situation. In these cases, wikipedia, provides broad exposure and it's readers throughout the planet may take the time to make sure it's more reliable, or at least more representative than a traditional encyclopedia probably written in a western democracy by upper middle class white people with a liberal arts education who specialize in selling proprietary information for a profit. Can anyone cite research on wikipedia accuracy vice popular publications, newspapers or trade journals?
Holding someone "responsible" strikes me as a very American trial-lawyer way of thinking. Are you planning to throw them in prison or sue them for libel? Maybe fly them to eastern europe and torture them? Bad information is everywhere. It's each individual's responsible to make sure research they have done has been double checked. This is especially true when you're doing actual reasearch which you plan to publish or submit.
Personally, I suspect that Wikipedia's method is a somewhat viable way to shuffle out the stupids, as true statements will be less likely to be edited than untrue statements, so gradually over time Wikipedia will tend to be more and more likely to contain true statements.
Replace the phrase "true statements" with the phrase "statements generally accepted by the public" and you would be correct. That's part of the problem. Everyone raise your hand if you can think of at least one scientific theory, historical event, etc. that is misunderstood or disbelieved by the public. Wikipedia will tend toward widely held beliefs, which may or may not be true.
So the Register article says "You can't trust Wikipedia", but personally, I'd trust Wikipedia before I trusted the Register.
The Register's "journalists" seem to be jealous because Wikipedia's articles are better than the Register's, even though everyone complains about how bad Wikipedia's articles are.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
No, this idea is completely subjective. As is everything else.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Maybe you could write that up in the wikipedia entry! :P
Okay, so one of the points raised in the whole issue is the fact that if it is going to call itself an Encyclopedia then it must be as authoritative and trustworthy as a "real" one right?
If it were just called "Wiki Pile of Conjecture" there would be no issue... right?
This means people should be able to trust it as implicitly as they trust a real encyclopedia... But the problem is that people who are stupid enough to blindly trust what they read on the internet are exactly the ones who have absolutely no idea what "authoritative" even means and who posses no B.S. filters. I mean just look at how many people believe any utter nonsense that they hear... from anywhere.
The people who don't know how to use Wikipedia for what it is are just as likely to go off and leech info of some random geocities page. At least if it's on Wikipedia and it's rubbish it's possible to be weeded out. If you take the average user researching almost any topic they will pop onto google or msn, type a few keywords, and take the first result as being gospel.
There is simply no cure for these types, so why single out Wikipedia as being a special danger?
Online Encyclopedia is a Gathering for Internet Predators.