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."

Comments

Pot.. Kettle..

[Dynamoo]

Now, Wikipedia has its faults.. but to be honest, I find it a hugely relevant, usually accurate and very enjoyable resource, sometimes marred by personal agendas and bias. On the other hand, The Register is a hugely relevant, usually accurate and very enjoyable resource, sometimes marred by personal agendas and bias.

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?

Re:Pot.. Kettle..

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Yes, it is, but over the last fortnight I've found myself handing in 3 pieces of work with wikipedia as the primary reference. It's simply a lot more possible to data-mine than any other source. When you're doing degree level physics (don't laugh at my incompetence at research) the amount of sources that will explain what you want to know in an understandable format rapidly approaches zero. What you use is wikipedia, because it's the only thing you can understand - you either reference wikipedia (allowing whoever is marking to take those references with as big a shovel of salt as they want), or you lie and reference the papers that relate to the topic but that you didn't read because you didn't understand them.
I go with honesty

Re:Moral Victory

[tjp368]

If you want to make that comparison, Wikipedia is to encyclopedia as Register is to news.

Re:flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

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 you have hit the nail on the head dead-on in terms of the "Encyclopedia" distinction. I teach a Research Methods class for a small liberal arts college in the U.S. and the frustration that occurs from students citing wikipedia as an authoritative source can be overwhelming. It is difficult enough to teach students that the first source they find on the web is not the best source - you would be stunned by how many papers I receive (and correct, and correct again in subsequent revisions) where students cite unaccredited geocities websites, bulletin board posts, etc. in their papers. Wikipedia presents a whole new onion to peel - students see the word "Encyclopedia" and associate it with what they've been taught in primary and high school education systems: The information you find in an Encyclopedia is valid.
          That being said, sure, other Encyclopedias become dated or contain inaccuracies, but the fundamental difference is that someone is accountable and culpable for correcting those mistakes or lack of updates. When information in Encyclopedia Brittanica goes out of date, someone corrects the information. With Wikipedia, there's no accountability. There's no impetus for someone to go back and fact check. Wikipedia relies on other users to "pipe up" when they feel its necessary to - and even then those who pipe up may or may not be a qualified source on a particular issue.
            Granted, not every article on Wikipedia suffers from these problems, and not every article needs a "qualified source," (for instance, what are the necessary qualifications for an article outlining the history of the Smurfs?) but the "encyclopedia" distinction is one that almost implies that the information contained within is credible, reliable, and subject to qualified review. Wikipedia is just as flawed as slashdot.

Hell, it's only a matter of time before I'm referring to Wikipedia articles written by **Beatles-Beatles** with edits and updates from Scuttlemonkey. :-)