Slashback: Wikipedia, Netwosix, GooglePC

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including Why the media can't get Wikipedia right, Linux Netwosix author follows up, Hwang Woo-suk defends himself, Plasma thruster verified by the ESA, and Google dispels PC rumors. Read on for details.

Why the media can't get Wikipedia right. Ruff_ilb writes "David Weinberger has published a quite down-to-business look at Wikipedia, the media, and what they have to say about each other. From the article: 'When the mainstream media addressed the John Seigenthaler Sr. affair -- he's the respected journalist who wrote an op-ed in USAToday complaining that slanderously wrong information about him was in Wikipedia for four months -- the subtext couldn't be clearer: The media were implicitly contrasting Wikipedia's credibility to their own. Ironically, some of the media got the story fundamentally wrong, in tone and sometimes in substance,' he writes. 'Wikipedia has been a continuous state of self-criticism that newspapers would do well to emulate. It has discussion pages for every article. It has handled inaccuracies not defensively but with the humble understanding that of course Wikipedia articles will have mistakes, so let's get on with the unending task of improving them. Wikipedia's ambitions are immodest, but Wikipedia is not.'"

Linux Netwosix follows up. LinuxWorld writes "Vincenzo Ciaglia has authored an article that describes his Linux Netwosix release, and answers many questions being posed by developers. He reiterates much of the information that he conveyed in a recent interview with LinuxWorld, but also added some new information. From the article: 'The installation is simple and with the new release, Linux Netwosix 2.0-rc1, there's a new setup tool based on the Crux one that really help every user because it is simple and user-friendly for a security/network oriented GNU/Linux distribution. The Setup script will show a simple list of available 'base' packages you can choose to install on your system.'"

Hwang Woo-suk defends himself. JonN writes "The Korea Herald is reporting that 'disgraced stem cell researcher Hwang Woo-suk recently defended himself insisting he has the technology to produce patient-specific stem cells and that he had been the victim of a "long-planned" conspiracy. An investigation panel at Seoul National University has concluded Hwang did not produce any embryonic stem cells individually tailored to patients as claimed in a paper published in the journal Science last year. Hwang stood by his work in an interview with a local Buddhist newspaper Saturday.'"

Plasma thruster verified by the ESA. JonathanGCohen writes "Researchers at The Australian National University have developed a plasma engine to provide spacecraft with thrust, with implications for future Mars missions. Their design was recently verified by the European Space Agency and will go into full-scale testing next year."

Google dispels PC rumors. JamesAlfaro writes "Google has spoken, and the rumors were merely that. According to a Google spokesman, the company won't be releasing a PC, Internet appliance, or web-enabled toaster anytime soon: 'We have many PC partners who serve their markets exceedingly well and we see no need to enter that market,' a Google spokesman told Times Online. 'We would rather partner with great companies.'"

Comments

Looking Back

[ackthpt]

The media were implicitly contrasting Wikipedia's credibility to their own. Ironically, some of the media got the story fundamentally wrong, in tone and sometimes in substance

Which the mainstream media takes with a sly wink -- getting things wrong and then burying retractions or simply moving on to the next big scoop is a time honoured tradition. Wikipedia would do well to learn from the example, it is InfoTainment, after all.
"Coming up, a hard look at the pharmaceutical industry, brought to you by the makers of Damitol"

The installation is simple and with the new release, Linux Netwosix 2.0-rc1

Meanwhile, charges that Linux naming convention is too arcane for the common clod abound. Why not call it View?

disgraced stem cell researcher Hwang Woo-suk recently defended himself insisting he has the technology to produce patient-specific stem cells and that he had been the victim of a "long-planned" conspiracy.

Senator Hillary Clinton on line One.

[Plasma thruster verified by the ESA] Their design was recently verified by the European Space Agency and will go into full-scale testing next year.

Alas, no Engineering Officer Montgomery Scott to man them.

'We would rather partner with great companies.'

In the meantime they'll partner with AOL.

Re:Looking Back

[Ruff_ilb]

Which the mainstream media takes with a sly wink -- getting things wrong and then burying retractions or simply moving on to the next big scoop is a time honoured tradition. Wikipedia would do well to learn from the example, it is InfoTainment, after all.

And it's not with Wikipedia? Getting things wrong and then changing them over and over again seems to be the big thing...
But on the other hand, they don't bury their retractions (nay, they archive them), and since it's not an online newspaper, they don't exactly have a next big scoop to move on to.
From TFA:

Wikipedia is obviously not the first and only instance of this type of knowing in our history. But the balance of heroic individual knowers and persistent, pseudonymous social processes is sufficiently different that the media generally have gone wrong with this story. After all, reporters are held accountable when they get something wrong, so why shouldn't Wikipedians?
A: Because Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and newspaper practices aren't the only way to knowledge.

Re:Looking Back

[ackthpt]

After all, reporters are held accountable when they get something wrong,

In my personal experience this only happens when, within the industry, competitors jump at an exposed flank. If you listen to or read news regularly you can find a great number of inaccuracies because when some writers don't know and don't have time to verify, they just make stuff up. I know this from personal experience, which is why I never give interviews anymore. I've got rather fed up with the misquotes, out-of-contexts and pure bull. Keep in mind, media has a bent, to sell itself. If it was only interesting in accuracy then you would see a page of corrections a day. Why don't you? Who's going to buy media that admits to making that many mistakes.

Re:Looking Back

[drinkypoo]

Editors often fuck up stories left and right. Here is an article on drinking games for which I was interviewed (back when I ran the 'net's largest drinking games website) and which shows the editorial markings. Only one quote from me went into the article, and then they proceeded to botch my job title. WTF is an "Administrator"? They deliberately edited the guy's article to change the entire feel from hopeful and whimsical to condemnatory.

Re:Looking Back

[ackthpt]

Editors often fuck up stories left and right.

Sometimes, in the case of newspapers, it's not even the editor, but the printer. Ever notice how you can be reading an article and they seem to repeat details? The authors are filling space ("inches") and have no idea how much will be lopped off the end to make it fit, hence "All The News That Fits, In Print" is often very true.

I once wrote a column and was furious that my summary was missing. The editor explained the practice to me. I don't write columns anymore.

i just babble away on /. now.

Re:Looking Back

[drinkypoo]

This of course is the joy of the web. Since it's device-independent, and the current trend among those in the know is to use CSS while avoiding absolute positioning, you don't have this problem. You just split up your content and avoid the whole thing. Paper is dying as surely as the trees it's made of.

Re:Looking Back

[Jimbox25]

there's no need to apologize

Re:Looking Back

[ackthpt]

This of course is the joy of the web. Since it's device-independent, and the current trend among those in the know is to use CSS while avoiding absolute positioning, you don't have this problem.

Look around, you'll find even for the web they write articles to fit on many sites. Some websites are quite structured around the advertising placements.

Re:Looking Back

[drinkypoo]

I grant you this - I'm pretty surprised no one has developed a website that outputs PDF on the fly, yet, and you just browse around it. It would work fine since PDF supports hyperlinks. You'd only need to load an HTML page to fill out forms. On the other hand, it seems like more and more websites are getting over being so worried about absolute positioning. The top of the page is usually carefully formatted, but they don't pay nearly as much attention to the bottom.

Re:Looking Back

[Magic5Ball]

No one pays attention to the bottom, on-line or in print. Short attention spans mean that most people don't read beyond the first few paragraphs and ignore the bottom of the swordchucks.

Re:Looking Back

[Skreems]

I think the reasoning would be that PDF is slow as crap, while HTML-based pages are not. It may be just a difference in how much optimization has gone into which application, but I would lynch somebody before I let them take Firefox in favor of a pdf-based system.

Re:Looking Back

[1u3hr]

Sometimes, in the case of newspapers, it's not even the editor, but the printer.... I once wrote a column and was furious that my summary was missing. The editor explained the practice to me.

The editor snowed you. Printers aren't allowed to make those kind of decisions. Now editors do all the layout on screen, but even 50 years ago in the days of hot lead, the printer would call the editor and tell he was running long and ask him what to do.

Re:Looking Back

[drinkypoo]

You don't need to take firefox in place of a pdf-based system. I view PDFs in firefox almost every day.

Re:Looking Back

[dedave]

What's a swordchuck? Are they related to biblechucks?

Re:Looking Back

[Magic5Ball]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=swo rdchucks

A hypothetical weapon where two swords joined by a chain...

<=sword=}-----chain-----{=sword=>

Ahh, Wikipedia.

[Anonymous Coward]

There was plenty of vandalism on the Louis Braille wikipedia page today, likely because it appears in today's braille google search.

But hey, since it's free and world-editable, apparently I'm the guy who is responsible to correct garbage information.

You wiki apologists are worse than... than... Creationist Java developers.

Re:Ahh, Wikipedia.

[geekoid]

ahh that would explain the memory leaks.
Philosophically, we must ask ourselves "Who wrote Light()?"

Re:Ahh, Wikipedia.

[tehlinux]

On the first day, God said: "Object o = new Object();" and it was good!

Re:Ahh, Wikipedia.

[God of Lemmings]

Bah. Everyone knows that God's programming language is C, even google.

#include <stdlib.h>    /* for malloc */
#include <planet.h>    /* for earth */
#include <firmament.h>    /* for heaven */
#include <string.h>    /* for perror */

int main(int argc, char **argv) {

   planet *earth = (void *)0;
   firmament *heaven;

   earth = (planet *)malloc(sizeof(planet));
   if (earth == (void *)0) { perror("Unable to create planet!\n"); exit(1); }

   /* some defaults */
   earth.land = 0.0f;
   earth.sea = 1.0f;
   earth.form = 0;
   earth.time = (void *)0;

   light = (photon_source *)calloc(1, sizeof(photon_source));
   if (light == (void *)0) { perror("Unable to create light!\n"); exit(2); }

   light.state = DAY;
   earth.time = light;

.....

Re:Ahh, Wikipedia.

[Anonymous Coward]

#include <planet.h> /* for earth */
#include <firmament.h> /* for heaven */
..
exit(1);
..
exit(2);

However, God does not write portable code.

Re:Ahh, Wikipedia.

[lothlorien]

The issue of (un)intentionally wrong info in wikipedia is not that simple, especially when it provokes attempts to clear its name. Let's not forget that wikipedia is _made_by_users, therefore the responsibility for its content _stays_with_users. The problem is, when you try to make a manageable, branded product out of wikipedia, you will always have problems with "lack of reliability". Ultimately, the model can be reliable up to a certain level, and should be evaluated from that standpoint, and branded/presented accordingly.

Re:Ahh, Wikipedia.

[Thumper_SVX]

Philosophically, we must ask ourselves "Who wrote Light()?"

And there I was believing the bible... I thought right at the beginning Light() was just declared.

Damn Buddhist newspapers

[Anonymous Coward]

They make you wait until your next life to get the answers to the crosswords.

Hwang woo-suk

[User 956]

Ok, so if the guy's the subject of a "long-planned" conspiracy, why step down? and why the apology?

Re:Hwang woo-suk

[kfg]

Because he's an old (relying on Wikipedia) person in Korea?

KFG

Re:Hwang woo-suk

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they have his family hostage!

Re:Hwang woo-suk

[geekoid]

Because in some organizations the implication of wrong doing is enough to warrant a "Retirement" or "stepping down".

Also, an apology may be required as well.

This happens in government a lot.

Re:Hwang woo-suk

[Eccles]

Because he's an old (relying on Wikipedia) person in Korea?

Relying on Wikipedia? Then he could be a 13 year old girl in western Montana.

I keed, I keed...

Re:Hwang woo-suk

[chris_eineke]

I smell a conspiracy in the making.

Re:Hwang woo-suk

[NateTech]

You have to understand how the Korean culture works.

This guy is our equivalent of a rock star there -- paid very well, etc. Koreans hold technological advancement in high esteem as a source of national pride.

So his position is not only a scientific one like we're used to seeing... Academics here in the States are generally just left alone to do their work and publish papers... he is a political figure, and a symbol of "Korean intelligence".

Add in the generally Eastern philosophy that you never ever dishonour your co-workers or family, and you have the recipe for the cultural differences, at least on a big-picture scale.

He had to step down in light of all of the above because he didn't do what he said he did. It's an integrity issue over there, and one our culture here could badly use to reign in some ultra-greedy businesspeople...

If running a fair/clean business were a source of national pride... imagine the possibilities, psychologically, socially, and monetarily.

stem cell honour

[jacquesm]

The only way that can end honorably is by having the esteemed researcher committing hara-kiri or something to that effect, stem cell research has been dealt a tremendous blow, and this will surely have it's effects on the real researchers abilities to perform their job.
Especially those that will have their funding cut.

Re:stem cell honour

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, since he's Korean, I'm sure harikiri would be an extremely odious idea.

Re:stem cell honour

[Anonymous Coward]

And if he were Japanese, I doubt he'd call it by a name as vulgar as harakiri. Seppuku is the proper term.

I got it!

[winkydink]

Google will release an OS based on Nettwosix and Wikipedia that will be used primarily for stem cell research.

Re:I got it!

[flanksteak]

And the media won't get it, because some of the stem cells will 'jokingly' link prominent citizens to forty-year-old conspiracies.

Re:I got it!

[kfg]

. . .at Mars Colony.

KFG

Re:I got it!

[Anonymous Coward]

And all this will be based on wheels!

Re:I got it!

[Sen.NullProcPntr]

Where does the overthruster err. I mean the Plasma thruster fit in?

Re:I got it!

[winkydink]

A new way to delete wiki entries and sterilize your lab equipment simultaneously.

Re:I got it!

[Anonymous Coward]

And SCO will sue claiming they wrote the underlying OS.

Yeah, well...

[Sheetrock]

This is the same media that's been pooh-poohing blogs for over a year now, not to mention at it's also the one that nowadays covers only the most politically insipid stories it can find, and rushes to air and to press the instant there's a tragedy, screwing up the facts for hours.

Sure, Wikipedia wouldn't compare well to actual journalism, but where do you find that nowadays?

Re:Yeah, well...

[Upsilon Andromedea]

Sure, Wikipedia wouldn't compare well to actual journalism, but where do you find that nowadays?

It may wax and wane but I wonder how much "actual journalism" ever existed.

When I was studying journalism and writing for the college paper in the 80's, I used to delight in correcting stories in the local papers. After all, the facts had been wrongly reported--things like chronology, technical or legal process, impacts or consequences--and I felt a responsibility to correct those wrong facts in my story if it were going to press at a later date. :)

It wasn't just the facts. Sometimes the fairy tales my role models wrote simply stunned me and left me gapping like guppy.

Interestingly, it is the generation of journalists who were predominantly college educated, starting in the '70s, that have generated the reputation of the hour for American journalism. I don't know that to be cause and effect. It just seems noteworthy. :)

Claiming a standard isn't in itself anything more than a voiced expectation. To expect Wikipedia to be the final authority might be a mistake. Maybe as much of a mistake as expecting there to be a final authority at all.

Re:Yeah, well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia wouldn't compare well to actual journalism, but where do you find that nowadays?

Britain!

While far from perfect, our newspapers are really pretty good. For example, The Guardian has been involved with Blogs for ages, The Independent frequently takes controversial political views, The Times seems to deserve its reputation for factual accuracy (at least more often than its many namesakes, LA, NY, etc.), and The Telegraph... well it has a good crossword... ;-)

Re:Yeah, well...

[belrick]

Sure, Wikipedia wouldn't compare well to actual journalism, but where do you find that nowadays?

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, of course.

Re:Yeah, well...

[nuigi]

Sure, Wikipedia wouldn't compare well to actual journalism, but where do you find that nowadays?

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, of course.

Don't forget that Steven Colbert has The Word.

Re:Yeah, well...

[relifram66]

I'm not sure that the parent should be modded funny. Insightful, yes. Disappointing, yes. But funny? The Daily Show is unfortunately just about the most reliable jounalism show on TV right now.

Re:Yeah, well...

[emamousette]

Mod me as redundant, but this is sadly true.
Too many of the news stories that should be hard-hitting investigative features on the networks are presented with more clarity on the Daily Show in a 1 minute segment.
It's interesting too how many serious journalists are making sojourns to the Daily Show these past few months.
And has anyone else noticed how Colbert has been able to ask tougher questions (under the guise of jokingly being 'on their side') of conservative pundits during his Q&A than they would stand for anywhere else?
Only in the United States can a station called "Comedy Centra" be the source of reliable journalism....

Re:Yeah, well...

[exegesis clique]

The world is funny... Laugh...

Re:Damn Buddhist newspapers

[ackthpt]

They make you wait until your next life to get the answers to the crosswords.

Ah, grasshopper, you have to master the deja view to see them in this life.

GooglePC

[RickPartin]

I don't see why everyone was eating up that GooglePC story. The article posted on Slashdot clearly said it was only a rumor. They are an internet company. It will be a long time until we see them selling consumer electronics.

Re:GooglePC

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why everyone was eating up that GooglePC story. The article posted on Slashdot clearly said it was only a rumor.

Hey, I heard that 12 miners were rescued yesterday too.

Re:GooglePC

[superpulpsicle]

Their stock (GOOG) immediately jumped yesterday from $420 to $445 at the point of the GooglePC news release on slashdot. Today the stock price plateaued right when MSNBC announced http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10708514 that Google will bust at a $600 stock price when it can no longer maximize that same revenue source. To be honest I see no sign of stopping at $600.

Re:GooglePC

[hey]

No way they would ever sell, say, a
Google Mini

Re:GooglePC

[Country_hacker]

Darn, and here I was hoping to see a Google branded one of these. :-/

On the stem cell defense

[Ruff_ilb]

Hate to break it to this guy, but he should've known what he was getting in to even in Korea. I'm not justifying the actions of those going against him, nor am I condoning his method of defense, but Stem-Cell research is probably most politcally charged research topic today. Still, I hope that the research can continue.

Re:On the stem cell defense

[Frogbert]

Yeah stem cell research is getting more bad press these days then that guy who was poisoning cats in a box, then claimed that he didn't even know if the cat was alive or dead.

Re:On the stem cell defense

[Ruff_ilb]

No, a valid comparasion can't be made to "that guy", because he was both getting bad press and not getting bad press simultaneously until he unfurled his newspaper.

Of course, there are still those that wish to know if the cat was alive or not; here's the truth: Schrödinger's cat was...

*End Carrier: Everett Many-Worlds Decoherence Error. Please notify your ISP*

Re:On the stem cell defense

[timeOday]

I have seen no indication of Hwang Woo-suk being persecuted due to the ethical controversy over stem cell research. Woo-suk's problem is he's a liar and a cheat.

Re:On the stem cell defense

[mattr]

Yup, could very well be seems like a 95% chance to me. We base our opinions on net-based news stories. On the other hand there is the story of Pons and Fleischmann, who it seems have in fact been vindicated if recent net-based news stories about goverment testing is correct.

Don't trust the media

[Frogbert]

I learnt a long time ago to never believe anything at all that I read in the media. If you have ever had any personal experiance relating to a news story you will know that the resulting write up will be too brief, have glaring omissions and will most likely be inaccurate, if not flat out wrong.

At least with with wikipedia I can change the mistakes when I see them.

Re:Don't trust the media

[RickPartin]

You are absolutely right. EVERY tech news article I read by a non-geek news source is usually messed up. Awhile ago my local news channel mentioned some huge sum of money that the record industry loses from piracy. It was clearly propaganda from the RIAA. The news is only good for a rough idea of what's going on.

Re:Don't trust the media

[Ruff_ilb]

Trust specialist sources: If you want News for Nerds, /. is the place to look. If you want news on hardware, try TomsHardware or Anandtech. I don't look for RIAA news on local channels any more than I look for fuzzy pink slippers on /.

Re:Don't trust the media

[shadowbearer]

fuzzy pink slippers on /.

  That'd be the "Think of the Flamingos" section.

  I for one would welcome our fuzzy pink slipper overlasses...

SB

Re:Don't trust the media

[Magic5Ball]

the resulting write up will be too brief

Would you read 40 inches about the new bill, or the random violence victim? Would most readers read 40 inches about _every_ new ordinance or tragedy? When it happens to you, *it* is important, probably the most important thing to you at the moment. *It* doesn't matter as much to the rest of us.

have glaring omissions

Not every detail is important to a good enough retelling of the story, and not every detail is as important as you think it is. A good interview should tease out most of the salient details, but not all of them will be used. In most cases, it's safe to not to include details that are not repeated by at least one other source (if it's important to the story, more than one source involved in the story will think so).

will most likely be inaccurate

Well, yes. It's impossible to capture and reproduce every detail. But most stories will capture the essential elements of the story that most people will care to read about. You may have done something about which you're personally proud in connection to the primary subject of the story, but unless your special act is essential to the substance of the story or affects someone else, it should be ignored because few readers will care.

Also, a reported fact or perspective is not wrong for the sole reason that you disagree with the person speaking it, or the position for which it advocates. Everything except happy news would be inaccurate or wrong if the sufficient condition is that someone disagrees.

if not flat out wrong.

You did not mention if you exercised your right to reply. Most editors and writers are more than receptive to provably legitimate and non-tantrum-based concerns.

At least with with wikipedia I can change the mistakes when I see them.

Yes... We can all change your position if we disagree with it. /ex print hack

Re:Don't trust the media

[Anonymous Coward]

The recording industry...what about the actual artists?

Hwang Woo-suk defends himself

[da5idnetlimit.com]

Damn, he says he can do it again and prove himself ?

Give the man a lab, the original cell strains, and a month to prove himself under supervision.

If he can do it, he gets the Nobel, Fame and excuses from the community.
If he can't, he has to build shoes or licence plates in a prison until he reimbursed the experiment and paid his time. And he presents excuses to the community.

Problem solved. Next Case, quick, I don't have all day...

Re:Hwang Woo-suk defends himself

[Anonymous Coward]

A month?? Obviously you are not a researcher...

Google hasn't dispeled anything

[Nick Fury]

"We have many PC partners who serve their markets exceedingly well and we see no need to enter that market," a Google spokesman told Times Online. "We would rather partner with great companies."

They haven't denied anything. They have stated that they aren't going to be making a PC. That doesn't deny the OS or a machine that could be backed with the Google Brand name. I'm going to wait until Friday and see how this turns out with CEO-guy's keynote at CES.

Re:Google hasn't dispeled anything

[westlake]

They haven't denied anything. They have stated that they aren't going to be making a PC. That doesn't deny the OS or a machine that could be backed with the Google Brand name

Give it a rest, will 'ya?

TiVO is losing ground to cheaper cable service-branded PVRs, every attempt to sell the middle class on the Network Appliance has ended in failure, a bloodbath of red ink.

GooglePC

[Saiyine]

I for one... loved the idea of an Linux or *BSD Google backed PC.

Is cool in so many ways that is easy to understand all the hype created on this, sadly, only a rumour. I hope all the good public response on the GooglePC makes they think twice about no releasing it.

About Google Cube - It's now in discussion

[ScrewTivo]

Will Walmart have a "cubicle" meeting with their PC mfg's and invite Google to site in. The buzz on this was way to furious for any marketeer to ignore.

Walmart has tried the Linux route before. Even though this might not be a Linux solution it surely would not be a Win solution.

"Hey you over there... put that chair down NOW!"

Re:About Google Cube - It's now in discussion

[ZachPruckowski]

"Hey you over there... put that chair down NOW!"

Wait. What smart people get themselves in a room with Ballmer and a chair?

Re:About Google Cube - It's now in discussion

[westlake]

Walmart has tried the Linux route before. Even though this might not be a Linux solution it surely would not be a Win solution.

Walmart is moving up-scale. It wants a cut of the high-margin Home Theater market. The HTPC. The X-Box 360. That is something Microsoft has shown it can deliver.

improvement?

[alexander m]

>> Wikipedia has been a continuous state of self-criticism
that's a spelling error. i'm pretty that was supposed to read "continuous state of self-denial"

Re:improvement?

[alexander m]

with no small degree of life's little ironies biting you gently in the ass, i have now left a word out of my post.

however, i shall now call it an "article", correct the original error, introduce several new ones, sneak in a little paragraph about gandhi sleeping with marilyn monroe while nobody is looking, and announce the imminent utopia.

Got to admit about Wikipedia's self-critisism

[LinuxDon]

There are discussions about even the smallest details in Wikipedia's articles!
From my point of view, when you read both the article as well as the discussion, you get a -very good- view about the subject.
A lot of articles will never be 100% finished since there are more ways to look at the same thing.

But can't blaim the press for their stories though... they're always trying to get a story out of -anything-.. Owww.. so does slashdot...

Re:Got to admit about Wikipedia's self-critisism

[commodoresloat]

Yes - though the problem is there's not yet any easy way to hilight the relevant or interesting parts of the discussions -- if you look at the first page of a discussion with several archives you are only getting the last week of discussion or so, which may be a silly rehash of an annoying revert war rather than anything useful. It would be nice if there was a moderation system in the discussion forum that allowed readers to use the discussion area to learn more about a topic rather than to just see what editors are fighting about lately.... though I fear such a system would be used instead as a gauge of who is winning these debates.

Re:Got to admit about Wikipedia's self-critisism

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? "Owww"? ... you mean "Ohhh", right?

Re:Got to admit about Wikipedia's self-critisism

[Kadin2048]

I also think perhaps the biggest benefit of Wikipedia is that, by reading both the article (and its history) and the discussion, you can actually get an idea of the various sides of the issue. Or at the very least -- assuming the article has a discussion -- perhaps where the person who wrote it is coming from and what sort of bias they might have.

I read a lot of stuff off of the Google News aggregator, and sometimes it's difficult when you read an article from some random small-town newspaper's website, to figure out what their bias is. Are they conservative? Liberal? Pro-corporate? Pro-union? Without doing a lot of background research it's nearly impossible to tell. With a contentious article on Wikipedia it's usually pretty easy to go into the discussion and figure out the stances of the major people involved in writing/editing the article, and then go and look at those people's revisions and see what's being disputed.

To be honest, I think the ability to get insight into multiple sides of an issue is one of Wikipedia's strengths; in a way it's superior to a theoretical encyclopedia that actually was perfectly NPOV.

I also think that, provided Wikipedia survives over time, that it will be very interesting to track how public perception of some issues has changed. Especially big social or political issues: we'll have the ability to see a modern, potentially revisionist interpretation, but also to easily dig down and get the first revision which might be years old. With conventional media you'd be digging through microfiche, requesting back issues, or begging for old tapes if you wanted that same level of access. That side of Wikipedia is a huge, and IMO underappreciated, cultural resource.

You're right!

[DogDude]

I agree 100%. Don't trust people with college degrees in Journalism. Don't trust decades old organizations that have editors and fact-checkers. Don't trust reporters just because they actually "see" news as it happens. Don't trust people who have worked, often their entire adult lives, to get to the position they occupy. Instead, trust something written anonymously on the Internet.

Your post is a great example of the overall decline in the quality of the human gene pool, and society as a whole.

Re:You're right!

[kfg]

Don't trust reporters just because they actually "see" news as it happens.

I saw it too. Sometimes I was the subject of it.

I agree with your post. Don't trust them.

Instead, trust something written anonymously on the Internet.

But here we must part ways.

Your post is a great example of the overall decline in the quality of the human gene pool, and society as a whole.

Ahhhhhhhhh, the irony.

KFG

Re:You're right!

[DogDude]

Your post is a great example of the overall decline in the quality of the human gene pool, and society as a whole.

Ahhhhhhhhh, the irony.

It wasn't intended to be ironic. I'm completely serious. People who say such stupid things actually ARE an example of the human species' overall decline in intelligence and suitability.

Re:You're right!

[kfg]

It wasn't intended to be ironic. I'm completely serious.

I know. That's why it's ironic.

KFG

Wikipedia and the media are apples and oranges.

[blair1q]

The News is expected to be foggy. Reporters can only report what they thought they heard and their editors can only correct what they know a priori.

But the Wikipedia should be "better", right? Thousands of eyes peruse and revise it every hour.

And yet, it's about as useful as an opinion column in a major-city bulldog tabloid.

Blame its lack of real leadership.

Re:Wikipedia and the media are apples and oranges.

[geekoid]

I disagree, the information there is very accurate overall.
I think it is hitting it's goal of providing a source for education very well.

Re:Wikipedia and the media are apples and oranges.

[vertinox]

Blame its lack of real leadership.

I think the point was its lack of leadership.

Unless that leader was an impartial robotic AI supercomputer that also happens to be Buddhist that can be impatial and have NPOV to all topics of mankind, then those leaders are going to have POV.

And with those opinionated leaders you are going to get opinionated articles. It is human nature. I hate to be a libertarian here, but you have to let the wiki market decide the articles produced and have no regulation other than the wiki editors of anyone who views the article (and those times when blatant vandalism is going on) or otherwise it aint a wiki anymore and you'd have an over glorified blog.

Wiki works for what it is as a general source of knowledge of the average opinion of mankind. And realize it isn't an end all authoritarian source for topics... Its nothing more than a jumping board for most collective knowledge.

For all those anti-wiki naysayers, quit your bitchin and if you have a better idea lets see you put it online.

Re:Wikipedia and the media are apples and oranges.

[voidphoenix]

Reporters can only report what they thought they heard... Actually, they're supposed to verify everything before they report it. It's part of something called "Journalistic Integrity" and "Responsible Journalism." Only reporting "what they thought they heard" is called rumor-mongering, not journalism. and their editors can only correct what they know a priori. If the editors knew about it a priori, then it wouldn't be news, now would it? Editors have the same responsibility, to verify all the facts before anything gets printed/broadcast/published/what-have-you.

Re:Wikipedia and the media are apples and oranges.

[blair1q]

>For all those anti-wiki naysayers, quit your bitchin and if you have a better idea lets see you put it online.

I'm working on it.

It's going to look a lot like the wikipedia.

Only without the petty tyrannies and with real instead of ersatz liberalism.

Re:Wikipedia and the media are apples and oranges.

[blair1q]

Try it some time. Even with multiple sources, the "facts" are only true by dint of luck. Reporters are humans, and humans do not repeat things with 100% accuracy.

Besides. It's the '00s. Journalistic integrity died in the 80s when Gannett Corporation put its first steel-box newspaper rack on the corner and started selling the USA Toady.

Re:Wikipedia and the media are apples and oranges.

[kiddygrinder]

I really disagree with what you're saying here.
For starters: Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. Also, most mildly impartial comparisons (if they even exist) of veracity between W.P and other printed encyclopedias tend to come out in favour of wiki on an article by article average, so (kind of) therefore it has achieved it's goals and is a very useful source of information (unlike most opinion columns which have none of the benefits of even being anything other than inflamatory).

I think a lot of people who think Wiki to the Pedia is crap place too much weight on information being either right or wrong. No information on any mildly complicated or especially political matter is either, it simply has varying levels of verifiability or social acceptance (which, i think, will be the route the Wikipedia will have to take; some kind of voting for edits system which will probably stagnate the whole thing for a while till it gets streamlined; but i digress).

The secondary (and in my opionion the most important) thing about the grand wiki is that it is entirely digitised and free. This may not seem like a great thing, but it is. My Holy Fuck it is. You start to see streams of info intermesh where it touches; Information may want to be free but divinity wants it well organised.

Should Wikipedia split off Wikipinion?

[hhr]

Perhaps Wikipedia articles should start off clearly marked as "opinion, unreviewed or unedited" and only after several rounds of review would they be promoted to the encyclopdia proper.

Most of Wikipedia's problems stem from the fact that it calls it's self a free encyclopedia and when people think of encyclopedias they think of "A work containing factual articles on subjects in every field of knowledge, usually arranged alphabetically"

Many of the non-science articles in Wikipedia are as much opinion as fact. The article on my home town was once "When it comes to culture XXXX seems in many ways able only to grasp the most dominant [[trends]] and, once this has occurred, unable to abandon them. Thus explaining the overwhelming popularity of oakley [[sunglasses]] (adopted in the mid-90s) combined with [[mullets]] (circa 1986), [[2Pac]] music, and [[jean jackets]]."

Clearly, marking new and unreviwed articles as opinion would go a long way to help Wiki's image.

Re:Should Wikipedia split off Wikipinion?

[psyclone]

Not a bad idea, but it does stifle growth in new areas. Wikipedia's already gone to the extreme on pages that get too many edits (locked for awhile). But hiding pages that have only a few edits doesn't help make the content any better. You could take the time to edit the pages you belive to have false information. Then they would be reviewed.

Re:Should Wikipedia split off Wikipinion?

[n8k99]

Many of the non-science articles in Wikipedia are as much opinion as fact. The article on my home town was once "When it comes to culture XXXX seems in many ways able only to grasp the most dominant [[trends]] and, once this has occurred, unable to abandon them. Thus explaining the overwhelming popularity of oakley [[sunglasses]] (adopted in the mid-90s) combined with [[mullets]] (circa 1986), [[2Pac]] music, and [[jean jackets]]." Sorry if that's all it says about your hometown- but please look around you, if it's true then you just have to face facts.

Re:Should Wikipedia split off Wikipinion?

[Hard_Code]

Although possible less susceptible to the vagaries of the random interweb user's opinion, I think it would be incorrect to assume that even traditional encyclopedias were unbiased. In fact, it might be a subtle but homogeneous bias that is undetectable because it is reinforced everywhere and does not stand out.

What?

[Reality Master 101]

It has handled inaccuracies not defensively but with the humble understanding that of course Wikipedia articles will have mistakes, so let's get on with the unending task of improving them. Wikipedia's ambitions are immodest, but Wikipedia is not.

Transparency is not modesty.

If you read the Appeal for Donations, Wales specifically believes that Wikipedia has the potential to change the world by providing education to people who may need education. Implicity in that belief is that Wikipedia will be accurate enough to be a resource useful for that.

I always hate to knock Wikipedia, because I really do think it's an interesting experiment, but it has very serious flaws. It's biggest flaw is a "Tyranny of Those With The Most Time." There have been a couple of cases where I've tried to make some changes to a particular article that I knew were accurate, but I got some a-hole, who believed they owned the page, reversing my changes because they disagreed with them. Who has time to fight that battle? Apparently the a-hole does, but I certainly don't.

Re:What?

[geekoid]

but those articals that have those type of a-holes are far in the minority.
It has been my experience that when you move outside classic geek culture items, ity is stable and accurate.

Now, if it could filter out posts that come from someone sitting in there mothers basement, it would be rock solid!

As an exercise, I did a look up on Gravity , refrigeration
and William Tell

all of those seem pretty darn accurate.
Now, If there was a controversy regarding Astro Boy, I would be very casutious of the information on wikipedia. But that would be the same as any site, paper, or comic shop guy.

Re:What?

[AxelBoldt]

There have been a couple of cases where I've tried to make some changes to a particular article that I knew were accurate, but I got some a-hole, who believed they owned the page, reversing my changes because they disagreed with them.

This does indeed happen, but there are things you can do. First, get yourself a user account, and put something about you on your user page. Anonymous users generally have lower standing in Wikipedia discussions. Next, support your changes with citation of a reputable source, and explain them on the Discussion page. In your edit summary, refer to your explanation on the Discussion page. Don't come off as a prick, but be open to changes and improvements.

Now if you are still being reverted, there are two possibilities: the editor is trying to push a certain agenda, or you are. If you are certain it is the former, you can bring up the matter at the Discussion page where editors for that particular field typically hang out; for instance there's a "Wikiproject Chemistry" and a "Wikiproject Chinese cities" etc. If nothing helps, you can post a "Request for Comment" (RfC), but that's a major undertaking.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that many subject-mater experts simply don't have the time to correct facts that are continually 'reversed' by an omnipotent little arsehole. But I feel that at the moment the Wikipedia is in a 'wild west' mode where content is being created and flung into it willy-nilly. Eventually the most appalling mistakes will be corrected whether the arseholes like it or not. Later less obvious mistakes will be corrected, and later more and more minor ones. So just satisfy yourself that progress is being made, and like all mass-collaborative efforts we must wait for order to emerge from the chaos.

As a second note, I seem to remember that the Oxford dictionary would often ask 'guest' experts to write particular entries in their field of expertise e.g. Rutherford might have written the entry for the atom. (I think Harry Houdini wrote and entry for something as well). Do you think that the Wikipedia would benefit from a 'page owner' that was elected/disposed of through some democratic mechanism? Whilst they occupied the role of page owner, they could receive submissions/corrections from others, but would nonetheless have the final say.

Re:What?

[colinbrash]

You just proved his point... You pointed out all the various time-consuming ways that he could, as he puts it, "fight that battle." Thus making it even clearer that, "It's biggest flaw is a "Tyranny of Those With The Most Time.'"

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Britannica then, is doomed. Because I spotted what looked like an error in there once, and I found out that I would have to dedicate months of my life to any attempt to get it corrected. Hopeless.

Re:What?

[swillden]

You just proved his point... You pointed out all the various time-consuming ways that he could, as he puts it, "fight that battle."

Oh, bullshit.

It takes about as long to put a couple of sentences explaining the reason for the change on the talk page as it does to make the change. So, yeah, it's "time-consuming". It takes four minutes instead of two. If you care enough to make the change, it's not a big leap to caring enough to add the explanation so it sticks.

If your change gets reverted in spite of your explanation (which has never happened to me), then it *might* be time-consuming to pursue it with the Wikipedia editors. I don't know if it is or not, because I've never had to do it. Odds are, you won't either.

Re:What?

[kamapuaa]

If you really think the "a-hole" will only revert changes from anonymous users, you don't understand the nature of Wikipedia a-holes. If everybody was reasonable, disagreed-upon point would be put on the talk section and discussed intelligently. In reality, these "talk" sections are ofteb bully pulpits for the people with axes to grind, and don't really accomplish anything. I'm sure there are exceptions but I've seen in time and time again.

Re:What?

[swillden]

In reality, these "talk" sections are ofteb bully pulpits for the people with axes to grind, and don't really accomplish anything. I'm sure there are exceptions but I've seen in time and time again.

You must edit different sorts of articles than I do, or you must make different sorts of edits than I do, because this is not my experience. Another possibility is found in the old saw "If you've run into five assholes this morning, look in the mirror to see the sixth".

Re:What?

[kamapuaa]

Another possibility is found in the old saw "If you've run into five assholes this morning, look in the mirror to see the sixth".

Calling me names, for disagreeing with you in a civil manner. Excellent. It would seem you're the asshole, and don't understand why other people have a problem with Wikipedia.

Re:What?

[swillden]

Calling me names, for disagreeing with you in a civil manner.

I didn't call *you* anything. I just pointed out that it's a possibility.

Personally, I try always to keep in mind that when everyone around me irritates me it's likely I am the problem. If you never consider that possibility, then you almost certainly are the problem.

Re:What?

[cylcyl]

I find that most heated discussions occur with things that are interpretive. Such as historical figures / events / philosophy.

The fact that there might be a tyranny by those with most time is a reflection of real life. What we call historians today are effectively people who've spent the most time on an issue. Effectively, they are the ones published because they've spent the most time on this.

I think that it's a shame that primary sources do not use the wiki as a publishing medium when they've dedicated so much time on a topic. Tho it might be due to a lack of credential system in which authoritative sources will be given stronger consideration ... But that leads to other problems

Re:What?

[Antaeus Feldspar]

I'm not even sure I follow you, but if I am, I think you've missed the point. If someone wins a lawsuit because they could afford to spend $2M on prosecuting it and the defendant could only afford to spend $20,000 fighting it, that doesn't translate to the plaintiff is 100 times more legally right because that money might have gone to making sure the legal foundation of the case was actually solid and fair. It is far more probable that it went to things like filing unnecessary motions that the defendant had to waste his limited time and money to answer and dragging out the cases so that the defendant can no longer afford to defend even if they're in the right.

On Wikipedia it's similar; some people are very good at gaming the system so that they look to any casual examination like they're trying to abide by policy. "I'm just applying the policies on Neutral Point of View!" they cry when you catch them inserting discredited pseudoscience as fact. "Some people out there believe these things so I'm just making sure their viewpoint is represented!" "I'm just applying the policies on verifiability!" they cry when you catch them removing descriptions of points of view they disagree with. "These claims aren't cited to the Nth degree and so I'm removing them!" In theory there's procedures for dealing with such people but they are time-intensive and energy-intensive and the whole mess is complicated by an unfortunate part of Wikipedia culture called "Assume good faith" -- unfortunate because too often it's interpreted as "keep on assuming good faith even after it's become clear that you're dealing with a slimy little weasel." Even when you can point to an iron-clad pattern of double standards you're almost sure to be hit yourself with accusations that you're "failing to assume good faith" or that you're targeting that person for persecution because you're prejudiced against the point of view (and not because of the means by which they're pushing it.)

Re:What?

[Antaeus Feldspar]

If your change gets reverted in spite of your explanation (which has never happened to me),

OK, so I'll guess you've been editing... hmmmm.... five? five days? six, maybe?

Google and the Braille hypocrisy

[tepples]

Today Google celebrates the birthday of Louis Braille, who invented the braille tactile writing system used by the blind community, with a custom homepage logo written in braille. However, the Google Accounts signup page does not allow users who use a refreshable braille display to create an account. Blind users are treated as collateral damage in the war against spambots. Is Google acting hypocritical, or am I just a critical hippo?

Re:Google and the Braille hypocrisy

[drinkypoo]

It's not hypocrisy, just irony. (Yes, it is irony in this case! Google's intention was to honor L.B. but the result is the reverse since they don't support braille readers - assuming they in fact do not support them.)

Re:Google and the Braille hypocrisy

[Carthag]

While it is indeed a shame that Google's current system is unfriendly towards blind users, I can't really think up a way that it would work without also being easily machine readable (and thus usable by spambots). Perhaps that is why I am not working at Google :)

Re:Google and the Braille hypocrisy

[tepples]

I can't really think up a way that it would work without also being easily machine readable (and thus usable by spambots).

The registration of MSN Passport, used by MSN.com and Hotmail, allows the user to answer a visual challenge or an audio challenge. True, this doesn't work for deafblind users, but deafblind users tend to need human assistance in other areas of life as well, and at least it's more accessible than visual-only.

Re:Google and the Braille hypocrisy

[vga_init]

I really don't think it's that big of a deal; most blind people have friends that are not blind. An account only needs to be registered just once, so with a little help from a friend, a blind person can register an account quite easily. This is a very tiny and reasonable price to pay for better security, and is probably the best compromise.

Re:Google and the Braille hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

> However, the Google Accounts signup page does not allow users who use a refreshable braille display to create an account.

You can send them a text message from a phone. They DO provide an alternative. You cannot accomodate every particular choice of technology.

Re:Google and the Braille hypocrisy

[tepples]

You can send them a text message from a phone.

Which landline phone can send text messages again?

Assuming that by "phone" you meant "mobile phone", and if one can in fact use SMS to override the word verification, then the Google Accounts help pages surely do not mention it. And which mobile phone has a refreshable braille display?

Google is not an Internet Company

[TubeSteak]

Google is a software & services company. Most of their services involve search, but some include hardware (like the google appliance) or have nothing to do with either (gmail & gmail advertising).

Imagine if Google hooked up with some car-based GPS navigation company and offered to provide their maps and updates.

Google recently tried to get into the print ad game. They bought a page and subdivided it for sale to advertisers. It didn't really pan out, so it doesn't look like Google will keep it alive.

Just because Google provides most of their service(s) over the internet, doesn't mean they are tied to it.

Re:Google is not an Internet Company

[Anonymous Coward]

Google never demands a fee from the end user. If Google was in the PC business they would offer a device that WAS FREE yet assumed a small percentage of EVERYTHING you bought online with it.

Re:Google is not an Internet Company

[muhgcee]

Correction: Google is an advertising company first and foremost. Everything they do is aimed at providing more of your thoughts for sale.

Wiki stem cells... interesting

[Spy der Mann]

Scientist: Finally. The cure for cancer will appear inside this carefully-nurtured stem cell!
(Opens fluid-filled chamber)

Cat: Nya!!!! =^_^=

Scientist: Alright, who edited my research wiki!!

thank google, it was only a rumor

[Combas]

Honestly, who would want to buy a Google labeled PC-clone?

Call me a troll, but Im being serious, this isnt a shot at Google, I love those guys. All Im saying is what would be the point of buying a computer from them as opposed to Toshiba, IBM, Dell, or whomever else is selling puters now a days.

Other than just wanting to throw money at a non-evil company I cant see any compeling reason.

Google is an advertising and software company, if I want hardware Im going to go to someone with a proven record. Making computers is like making sausage, you really dont want to buy any from someone whos never made any before.

I keep getting heart palpitations just dreading the day when one of these idiotic rhumors is going to turn out to be true.

So far Google has played things very smart, I really hope they keep it up..

you're just a critical hippo

[TubeSteak]

Google (like most private companies) has no obligation to provide for handicapped users.

Voice recognition is a mature field these days, so I can imagine it wouldn't be to hard for someone to work around it.

Or maybe it's a feature they haven't gotten around to, maybe it's a feature that never occurred to them.

Instead of complaining on /. go find some relevant google e-mail address and complain to them.

If you really care about it, feel free to respond with the relevant e-mail address and the text of your e-mail. I'll send them an e-mail if you do.

Re:you're just a critical hippo

[kesuki]

Instead of complaining on /. go find some relevant google e-mail address and complain to them.

Bzzt! complete with headers (i've tried to e-mail google) Since the e-mail 'form' has a captcha... well, the fact that the captcha doesn't work for the blind at all (much less the deaf blind) google has completely cut off about 11% of the world population...

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/18/173 0202 as some have suggested simply having a 1-800 TDD friendly number to call would be the cheapest/easiest solution to handle deaf & deaf/blind user signups for a large corporation for smaller sites simply having a spam filtered e-mail might work, clearly though google sized operations can't simply open up an 'e-mail' address since the shere volume of spam would be the full time job of several people to sift through, even with modern filtering techniques.

X-Apparently-To: (deleted)@yahoo.com via (deleted).174; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:27:42 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [(deleted).4]
Return-Path:
Authentication-Results: mta102.mail.mud.yahoo.com from=google.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
Received: from (deleted).4 (EHLO (deleted)-4.google.com) ((deleted).4) by mta102.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:27:42 -0700
Received: from g3.neotonic.com (trakken3.corp.google.com [(deleted).27]) by brian.corp.google.com with ESMTP id (deleted)26 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:27:36 -0700
Received: by g3.neotonic.com (Postfix, from userid 5701) id (deleted)61; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
To: "Ryan Ryttie"
From: help@google.com Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Re: [#34500288] As a long time google user I just thought i'd try and e-mail google..
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:27:36 -0000
User-Agent: Neotonic Trakken/2.21.7
In-Reply-To:
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-replied
Content-Length: 337

Thank you for writing to Google. We'd like to assist you, but we only
respond to messages submitted through our online contact form. Please
visit http://www.google.com/support/ to submit your message, and we'll
get
back to you soon. We apologize for any inconvenience, and we look
forward
to hearing from you.

Regards,
The Google Team

Re:you're just a critical hippo

[Cederic]

>> Google (like most private companies) has no obligation to provide for handicapped users.

Actually, yes they do.

(in the UK)

wrong issues

[bcrowell]

The stuff the media criticizes about wikipedia and the stuff I'd criticize about wikipedia are disjoint sets.

IMNSHO, the main problems with wikipedia are:

1. As time goes on, an article's factual accuracy and level of detail tend to go up, but the quality of the writing tends to go down, because people slice and dice the words too many times.
2. It's incredibly inefficient. Mature articles get edited over and over again, and often if you compare the current version with last month's version, they're identical; people are just canceling each other out.
3. Articles on some technical topics, such as math and physics, tend to be extremely badly written, because people focus on putting in lots of rigorous derivations, which clutter up the article so much that it becomes unreadable. You can't delete the cruft, however, because the people who put it there will argue that it's valuable content.
4. Trolling by anons is tolerated too much. Articles can get paralyzed by anons for months at a time.

Re:wrong issues

[geekoid]

but that tends to happen with only artical pertaining to something controversal. Most things that are being edited because of contrversy return to normal in a short period of time.

For most thing it is a very acurate and valuable service.
Last night, it helped me teach my 5 year old girl how a refrigerator keeps the cold in.
Every time I have used it, it has been very accurate.

Re:wrong issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Disjoint sets....I'm surrounded by nerds....slashdot...I am a nerd...

Re:wrong issues

[Magic5Ball]

Every time I have used it, it has been very accurate.

But how do you know? Do you verify sources?

Re:wrong issues

[anthony_dipierro]

They're working on number 4 (trolling by "anons"), and they'll probably solve that one to a large extent (there is a semi-protection scheme already in place, although there is still argument about when it should be used). The rest of the problems though are somewhat systemic to the way Wikipedia runs. The common problem, I believe, is that there is no real separation between the raw notes and the actual final work.

Wikipedia

[jemenake]

People like John Seigenthaler Sr. seem to think that Wikipedia has some implicit pact with the browsing public to ensure the veracity of its content.

To the contrary, I've always viewed Wikipedia as a graffitti wall, in that anybody can scribble anything they want, and anbody else can scribble over that. The difference from other graffitt walls is that it happens to be correct 99% of the time.

or perhaps

[commodoresloat]

Perhaps someone who thinks this or any similar rearrangement of wikipedia content would be a good idea could take a look at the free content license and put together a more useful version of what's available there. That, I think, is the true future of wikipedia, and what makes it an important landmark in the history of knowledge. Any given article may be crap at any given time, but the open source model allows wikipedia content to become a grab bag of tools available to anyone with an idea for editing it and incorporating it into some other project. I can think of any number of projects involving specialized encyclopedias (online or hardbound and printed) based on wikipedia content that has undergone a more rigorous editing process.

Re:or perhaps

[interiot]

It goes both ways. Any wiki whose contents is licensed under the GFDL can be copy-n-pasted en masse to Wikipedia. And with interwiki links, wikis can be interlinked, so a specific wiki could, say, only copy out just the startrek stuff, and link back to the real-world wiki only when necessary. GFDL, it's great thing.

If you want to submit form, here's how

[tepples]

Google (like most private companies)

Private? Then what's GOOG? Oh, I guess you mean "private sector". Read on:

has no obligation to provide for handicapped users.

The U.S. Congress enacted the Rehabilitation Act soon after the end of the American police action in Vietnam. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires private sector firms that have contracts with the United States Government to make their information technology services accessible to those with disabilities.

feel free to respond with the relevant e-mail address and the text of your e-mail.

I used this form to contact Google:

• Your email address: criticalhippo@(hidden)
• Your Google Account issue: I am trying to create an account and can't proceed past the "Create a Google Account" page.
• If you currently have a Google Account, please answer these questions: n/a
• Any additional information you can provide: (If you're seeing an error message, please include the text of that message. If you're having trouble at a specific URL, let us know.)
  "If you can read this, you do not have images enabled. Please enable images in order to proceed." Given that Google is celebrating Louis Braille's birthday, where is the alternative Google account creation form for users of braille terminals?

I myself do not have such a disability, but my stepmother has a friend who lost her sight, and I saw first-hand what it's like to use a screen reader.

What we have learned is

[geekoid]

don't go to wikipedia for articals that are geek hot buttons.

eveything else is usually cool.

Re:What we have learned is

[ta bu shi da yu]

Guess you've never edited Arab Israeli confict or Armenian genocide then!

The faults in Wikipedia

[Jafafa Hots]

I like wikipedia and find myself using it more and more, and have contributed when able - but its not without its flaws...
One look at the page for bigfoot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot will show you that - THEN look at the discussion page for bigfoot and its even more disturbing.

I haven't dared to look up UFO yet.

Re:Google (....) anything possible explanation

[hoppy]

• Kilometers of dark fiber in US
  
• Very low cost computing
  
• Desktop software
  
• Strong storage infrastructure
  
• Opensource software and content
  
• An Estimated 163 million - Go Online
  

VIA pc-1 http://viapc-1.com/ low cost initiative http://www.via.com.tw/en/initiatives/empowered/fit the bill a lowcost for a network computer able to display on TV HD video and run ajax applications with local video capabilities to display DVD and tv-hd streams.

May be no local storage for the cheapest solution, and a large hard-drive for the "de luxe" version.
In fact like Xbox360 without gaming capabilities.
F.

His name...

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you trust Hwang Woo-suk

Now _there_ is an idea, WikiNews

[marcushnk]

Reporters (ie anyone) reports to the WikiNews, the community and a "board" will vet the news and the best/most popular stuff will be published in major cities.
Obviously this will require a lot of money and infrastructure but the concept is an exciting idea..

Re:Now _there_ is an idea, WikiNews

[Brushen]

http://www.wikinews.org/

Re:Yeah, well... but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Guardian does do some nice work... like this blog/column on the sad state of science journalism in Britain. ;)

Eg, Microbiologists raising doubts? It must be a cover-up

There are times when it's just great to be alive: you're running through the archives, the wind's in your hair, suddenly you stumble on a gem from last year's Sunday Mirror and it just makes you bless the day you decided to become a sarcastic and hateful campaigning science journalist.

How many microbiologists does it take to change a tabloid story?

The Economist is also worth noting. It not infrequently gets things wrong, but it's less of a joke than most of the U.S. media.

Guardian, Independent, Times.
And Google News.

Regardless of overall quality, non-US press can be a useful supplement for US readers, as their set of unsayable/unshowable things is different than that of the US press. Eg, avoiding the "breakfast rule" for photos (can't have appetite-disturbing photos... even of war), or the Independent's story today

Lobbying is Washington's grubby secret. Some say lobbying is part of the democratic process. Others claim it is legalised bribery, even corruption. But love it or loathe it, it is the way Washington works. ... The trade-off is simple. Corporate and other donors provide cash in a bid to secure the legislation they want.

Not something I would expect in the NYTimes.

The blog First Draft by Tim Porter is an insider's exploration of the press' problems.

The grandparent's experience is one I've seen a lot. You notice a direct correlation between how much you know about a domain, and how badly the press are bungling it. When one experiences this in several diverse domains... well, the temptation is to generalize.

Paul Graham's recent The Submarine discusses one source of intentional bogosity.

Cold fusion

[Guppy06]

"The Korea Herald is reporting that 'disgraced stem cell researcher Hwang Woo-suk recently defended himself insisting he has the technology to produce patient-specific stem cells and that he had been the victim of a "long-planned" conspiracy."

Yeah, maybe it's the same oil companies that were out to get Pons and Fleischmann.

give me a break...

[SuperBanana]

Which the mainstream media takes with a sly wink -- getting things wrong and then burying retractions or simply moving on to the next big scoop is a time honoured tradition.

That's hardly accurate.

News media answer to, in rough order: their editor, the ombudsman, the readers, and the civil court system. If a reporter continuously produces inaccurate reports, they're fired...and they're in a very visible profession...getting a job at another paper or station can be quite the challenge if they're a liablility, and reporters don't have the convenience of "buffing" their resume to a sparkle, because everything is out there. If they publish liable or slander, they're quite likely to get sued. If it's something the public cares about, people write letters to the editor, the ombudsman, etc...and ultimately, viewership/readership votes with their eyes. The news media can also be highly introspective, if they're in a competitive market; there's nothing one paper loves more than pointing out the mistakes of another paper.

Wikipedia answers, apparently, only to "the public". "The public" is in quotes, because what inevitably happens is that content only answers to those who are interested in it, and here's what often happens:

Something is edited/corrected -> Pet Editor/contributor undoes the edit, often claiming vandalism (I'm right, therefore your edit must be vandalism) -> Edit is reattempted -> repeat. Sprinkle "discussion" on the talk page, bake in the oven at 350 for 7 days until you get a watered-down factless vague entry nobody can figure out to, much less object...or the "corrector" says "fuck this" and walks away...and you're complete!

Note that in both cases- newspapers AND Wikipedia...SOMEONE NEEDS TO CARE. If Joe Blow misspells the name of J. Lo's puppy dog, nobody gives a shit. If the newspaper says some teacher sleeps with little boys and it turns out to be false- you can sure as hell bet there will be a fuss (in fact, there was a case where a teacher, in Boston, was accused of raping his driver ed students. The charges turned out to be false, and there was a LOT of debate afterwards over the terminology papers used to describe him, the charges, and his accusers.)

Furthermore, newspapers distinguish between FACT and OPINION. If it's news, you print only what you can verify, and you either don't speculate, or you are -extremely- guarded in your language when you do so. If it's an op-ed, you still better stick to facts, but it's understood you may present your opinion about said facts. A newspaper reporters knows what if he prints "the sky is pink", he'd better have 2-3 sources from scientists to back him up, and just in case, present an alternative viewpoint as a counter...or his ass is out the door the next morning if it turns out the sky is in fact, still blue. In the Wikipedia, there is no such requirement. I can put down in a bio that someone presidential advisor raped small children and worships satan...and unless someone notices AND cares enough to correct it, it stays...maybe for months.

Wikipedia's claim is that given enough monkeys, you will get the facts right. We have an established profession (called Journalism) which is pretty well proven to get the job done. That doesn't mean they're perfect, or even that all journalists are created equal. However, when it matters, journalists are ultimately held accountable, and they bear that in mind every time they flip open their notebook.

Meanwhile at Wikipedia, a thousand monkeys throw everything from gems to feces at a wall, and claim that what sticks is gold.

Re:give me a break...

[GoodbyeBlueSky1]

Something is edited/corrected -> Pet Editor/contributor undoes the edit, often claiming vandalism (I'm right, therefore your edit must be vandalism) -> Edit is reattempted -> repeat. Sprinkle "discussion" on the talk page, bake in the oven at 350 for 7 days until you get a watered-down factless vague entry nobody can figure out to, much less object...or the "corrector" says "fuck this" and walks away...and you're complete!

Wow, your writeup made me realize how very close Wikipedia is to being a real-life Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Too bad they won't let me replace all the text on this page with the words Mostly Harmless.

Re:give me a break...

[AKAImBatman]

Lemme see here:

Cars that were rigged to explode
"The Wall Within" that wasn't
The Killian documents

Those were just off the top of my head. Sure, they found a few scapegoats for those really big ones, but no one important got canned. Hell, Dan Rather got away with crappy journalism for decades before they finally cut him loose. (And even then there's still some question as to whether he didn't just retire.)

Like another poster said, I've been interviewed by reporters a couple times. It almost always leaves a bad taste as they just take a single soundbite out of a two hour conversation, then skew the article however they want it to go. Since their "journalism" is so wishy-washy, it's often hard to call them on being outright wrong. Sure, they're highly inaccurate, their facts are mixed up, blah, blah, blah. But no one cares enough to force the issue, partly because the buggers are so slippery.

Trust me. If you read it in the newspaper or watch it on television, take a very large grain of salt before buying into lock, stock, and barrel.

Re:give me a break...

[Anonymous Coward]

For months? Sometimes it takes years to figure out that journalists fabricate all or most of their stories, like the two NY Times reporters who finally got caught for doing so. If it took so long, it makes me wonder how many other people out there like that exist.

Re:give me a break...

[Anonymous Coward]

News media answer to, in rough order: their editor, the ombudsman, the readers, and the civil court system.

The editor far too often not giving a damn, the ombudsman having no power whatsoever, the readers being ignored unless you manage to piss off thousands of them at once that it hits circulation, and Sullivan v. New York Times and other First Amendment law rendering the media virtually immune to the courts.

If a reporter continuously produces inaccurate reports, they're fired

No. If they repeatedly produce blatantly falsified reports, they may be fired, depending on how much embarassment they manage to inflict on the owner of the outlet when other people find out.

Re:give me a break...

[SanityInAnarchy]

... And on top of everything else that's been said, they aren't just different mediums, they are intended for different things.

newspapers distinguish between FACT and OPINION.

So does Wikipedia. Fact goes in the main page. Opinion goes in the discussions. If you really think the main page is too boring, go read the revision history or the discussions.

nothing one paper loves more than pointing out the mistakes of another paper.

Except sucking up to the government, at least until recently.

Anyway, back to my point -- if journalists managed an encyclopedia, it'd be filled with lots of facts, but most would be attached to dates and little else. Who cares today that someone died exactly 3 years, 2 months, and 7 and a half days ago? Not enough people to put it in Britannica.

Now, the same things that make Wikipedia a good encyclopedia can also make it a decent news source, maybe. They're trying, anyway. But just about all news I either ignore, try to verify by checking multiple sources (since I don't yet trust any one news source), or wait for it to mature into known fact. And when it works, Wikinews is certainly "multiple sources". After all, if something's on the front page, people care. If they don't, why is it there? And you yourself admitted that Wikipedia works for articles which are popular.

And by the way, what's proven Journalism gets the facts right? Sounds like something you'd read in the evening news...

Re:give me a break...

[mdwh2]

Much of what you say isn't really a "Wikipedia vs everyone else" difference, but more the difference between non-professional and professional. Eg, in much the same way that a commercial programmer is held more accountable than a freeware or open source one.

Something is edited/corrected -> Pet Editor/contributor undoes the edit, often claiming vandalism (I'm right, therefore your edit must be vandalism) -> Edit is reattempted -> repeat.

If the edit is correct, then why aren't other editors stepping in to revert it? If not enough people are watching a particular article, then there are ways of drawing attention to it. If someone repeatedly reverts too often, they can be banned. It's not intended that "edit wars" are a good way of sorting things out on Wikipedia.

And can you provide some examples? Because just about every case where someone moans their edit was reverted, it was with good reason.

Furthermore, newspapers distinguish between FACT and OPINION. If it's news, you print only what you can verify, and you either don't speculate, or you are -extremely- guarded in your language when you do so.

I'd say the complete opposite, especially amongst tabloids. Wikipedia is very clear on only presenting facts, not opinion. Newspapers are often filled with their opinions, and facts are presented in a very biased manner.

A newspaper reporters knows what if he prints "the sky is pink", he'd better have 2-3 sources from scientists to back him up, and just in case, present an alternative viewpoint as a counter...or his ass is out the door the next morning if it turns out the sky is in fact, still blue. In the Wikipedia, there is no such requirement.

No, the reverse. There most certainly is a requirement in Wikipedia for verifiable sources. Meanwhile, newspapers print any old rubbish without evidence, or just because another newspaper said so.

We have an established profession (called Journalism) which is pretty well proven to get the job done.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news service, primarily, so the comparison doesn't entirely make sense. But countless times I've seen twisted facts or even outright falsehoods in the media, which gets circulated around all the newspapers without question.

However, when it matters, journalists are ultimately held accountable, and they bear that in mind every time they flip open their notebook.

But Wikipedia editors are held accountable in one way that journalists are not: That someone may edit what you write. So you'd better make sure it's factual, not-opinionated, unbiased and verifiable.

Yet you contradict yourself - when that happens, people like you scream "Pet Editor/contributor undid my changes". Which is it? Should people be held accountable, or be free to write what they like without it getting changed?

Errmmm...

[vertinox]

he's the respected journalist who wrote an op-ed in USAToday complaining that slanderously wrong information about him was in Wikipedia for four months

You know I'd seriously doubt the compentancy of a journalist who can't find the [Edit] link on a webpage.

Re:Errmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

The edit button isn't a problem. The time machine one is. The slander had been up for four months before he found it.

Re:Mainstream media will NEVER get WikiPedia.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on don't be an idiot. How is he supposed to edit an incorrect article 4 months before he finds out about it? Also if Wikipedia tries to make any claim as a reliable encyclopedia then there is a problem when it is so easy to make sneaky vandalism.

Biggest issue: academic honesty

[LGagnon]

The biggest problem I see with Wikipedia is academic honesty. That is, few edits are accompanied by references, and few of those edits are accompanied by paranthetical citations to show what the reference is a reference for. This is a basic writing 101 concept, yet few Wikipedia editors make use of it.

Google has no plans to make hardware

[vincecate]

Google will partner with hardware makers. They just want to sell software. They are after Microsoft, not Dell.

It seems that Wyse will be making hardware that runs Google's software. There could be others.

Google has said they are working on software to compete with Microsoft. Think Sun was in on this too.

John Stewart and the Daily Show...

[Anonymous Coward]

John Steward and the Daily Show got a peabody award. You know, an award for excellence, not content or popularity.

You know, the award that Bill O'Reilly claimed to have, then later retracted, because there is no level of excellence in anything he does.
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/pun dits/bill-oreilly/

You know, the award where he got into an argument with Al Franken, then went on air later on and insinuated that in a different time and place he would have liked to have shot Al Franken.

Yeah.

karma

[lovebyte]

Hwang stood by his work in an interview with a local Buddhist newspaper Saturday.
Well, it's not only on /. that people worry about their karma!

Re:karma

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe his karma ran over his dogma?

Hate to say it...

[Khyber]

But this kind of editing is what will make Wikipedia strong. Well, to some degree. granted, we can't know everything from one internet encyclopedia, but the main authorities on those subjects, plus the few outside the box thinkers that 'help' edit these subjects, will be the true ones opening the future for the rest of us. If we keep true and high-power knowledge secret, we're just dooming ourselves to slavery of some sort or another. We might as well break the mold and update what we know NOW, instead of later... (Like our EE and EM models)

Just a real honest thought, with ideas given to me from interviewing other researchers that are an easy 50+ years old that worked with Oak ridge (And I live in Memphis.)

Re:Hate to say it...

[blair1q]

Your acquaintances from Oak Ridge could redact the articles on the Manhattan Project, and within a year their edits would be superseded by layers of entropic cruft.

Wikipedia is designed to encapsulate the error rate nascent in human conversation.

And worse, because its control structure (the admins) drive away honest people (by treating them like vandals at random intervals), the Wikipedia incapsulates even more error.

Mod 727027 +999 Informative

[Khyber]

We have laws in this country that allow even the deaf, dumb, and blind, to know what our laws are, plus what their rights are. This man has it right, and my stepbrother is 100% blind. He may not be able to speak, but he can understand what's given to him in Braille. The USGov't is trying to screw us all over, even the deaf/blind citizens. This needs to stop.

Disclaimer: I've had 4 - 12 oz longnecks of Lone Star Beer (only brewed in Texas) and 5 shots of 43% [Avereage alcohol content) of liquor. Believe me, I'm fscked up beyond repair, and I'm a Windows usser. Think about it. They have the resources with the biggest and least secure OS available. Hack it, and make your RICO money, and help your p2p users to do the same.

Hear hear!

[ta bu shi da yu]

Has anyone else noticed the media constantly writing about how Wikipedia is blocking ALL editing to the site from anonymous editors? This is just one example of them getting it wrong. And lest you think it was a minor online paper that makes this mistake: the first paper to get it wrong was the UK's Guardian. The other big mistake they constantly make is that they believe that we are going to accept advertising, soemthing that Jimmy Wales has been repeatedly misquoted on.

I also noticed the NYTimes mention a difference in dating between EB's article and our own on Hwang Woo-Suk. I agree with the way that we correct things is modest: we listened to the NYTimes writer, George Johnson, and explained that it was a difference between the Korean calendar and the Gregorian calendar in a footnote.

Aspipedia

[bayvult]

And the Wiki-cultists think we owe them something. Wuh?

Truth, Wikipedia-style, is the result not of empirical analysis but of an endurance contest for fanatics. Truth is defined by whoever has most time to waste^H^H^H spare.

The Wikipedia model has always repelled many potential expert contributors and over the past 18 months the project has started to lose good Admins too.

So, no surprise, only the dingbats and twiddlers are left. Who else but an anally retentive nut would want to stick around either engaging in or policing an edit war?

Wikipedia tells us a lot about the psychology of Asperger's sufferers but adds very little else to humanity by propagating unreliable "information" as fact. (See the definition of Pedophilia). It seems to be a fun game for the Aspies, though. They get to give each other titles, awards ("Barn Stars"), and pretend the world gives a fuck about them. And get real upset when it doesn't. Boo hoo.

Re:Aspipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's a lot sadder that you spend your time on slashdot bitching about Wikipedia. Boohoo.

Improve your mistakes

[trollable]

"Wikipedia articles will have mistakes, so let's get on with the unending task of improving them."

I do improve my mistakes regulary, I'm a proud looser!

Re:Improve your mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

You spelled 'loser' wrong. That's only one mistake--you can do better.

Errors in Britannica and textbooks

[Brushen]

My high school text book says that the Senate voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and then he was acquitted by the Senate. In reality, it is the House of Represenatives that votes to impeach. It was made by the company that produces nearly all of Nashville's schools' textbooks, with CNN contributions, but unfortunately, I cannot edit it. More ironically, if I crossed "Senate" out and wrote "House" above it in a library book, it might be considered vandalism. How 'bout that?

Re:Errors in Britannica and textbooks

[cannuck]

Did "your" text book say - that the Senate voted on the impeachment or for the impeachment? Big difference. The name of the text book? Publisher? Year of publication?

Re:Errors in Britannica and textbooks

[Brushen]

"Voted to impeach Clinton for lying to a grand jury." Published in 2003 by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston under the name "World History: The Human Journey."

Re:Errors in Britannica and textbooks

[cannuck]

Didn't the Senate did vote on whether or not to impeach Clinton?

"The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President "...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence" in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit.

Re:Errors in Britannica and textbooks

[Brushen]

No, the House voted to impeach him, or charge him with the crime. The Senate voted on whether to convict or acquit for the crime.

Re:Errors in Britannica and textbooks

[cannuck]

Hmm.

a) Clinton wasn't impeached - yes or no?

b) Who voted on whether he was guilty of the charges and consequently whether or not he could be impeached - the Senate! - yes/no?

Re:Errors in Britannica and textbooks

[Brushen]

He was impeached by the the House, or they "charged (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal." The Senate voted he was guilty, which is not impeachment. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it comprises only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law.

Re:Errors in Britannica and textbooks

[cannuck]

I'm guessing you are playing with words here. The Senate did vote - yes/no? In case you need more info: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/shields&gigot/february 99/sg_2-12.html

Re:Errors in Britannica and textbooks

[Brushen]

The Senate did vote. Not on the impeachment. They voted to acquit during the trial. Sorry, I said they voted he was guilty in the last post, which was just plain stupid of me. The impeachment was decided by a vote in the House of Represenatives. The result of the trial begun by the impeachment was voted upon by the Senate.

Re:Errors in Britannica and textbooks

[cannuck]

So in the end - the Senate's vote - essentially voted on the impeachment.

Re:Errors in Britannica and textbooks

[Brushen]

But not to impeach as the textbook said.

Re:Errors in Britannica and textbooks

[cannuck]

As a result of the Senate vote - Clinton was not impeached - yes no?

Re:Errors in Britannica and textbooks

[Glothar]

Oh dear god.

Clinton was impeached. He was charged with a crime by the House of Representatives. That is all impeachment is: The charge, the allegation, the call for a trial.

Clinton was not convicted or removed from office. In order to be removed from office, the Senate would have to vote that the charges were true and that removal was warranted.

Clinton was impeached by the House.

He was acquitted by the Senate.

The Senate does not vote on the impeachment. They do not decide on the impeachment. They don't vote for impeachement, or from the impeachment, or to an impeachment. The Senate is, in this instance, a jury. A jury does not and cannot charge a defendant. They don't vote on the charges, they vote on the defendants guilt of those charges.

Come on, this isn't rocket science.

Mod up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent is right.

Even well researched facts with ample references do not stand a chance when it comes to the knuckleheads with time to spend.

Moreover large amounts of talk pages are frequently archived, even if sections very clearly are not resolved. Thus they can easily silence people whose inputs they do not like.

Wikipedia is yet another signal-to-noise experiment, similar to Usenet News in the late golden age. Noise always scale faster than signal in open communities where there is no working process.

For those keeping score at home...

[Eric S. Smith]

Another possibility is found in the old saw "If you've run into five assholes this morning, look in the mirror to see the sixth".

Calling me names, for disagreeing with you in a civil manner. Excellent. It would seem you're the asshole [...]

So, how many are you up to this morning, then? Counting me, of course.

Re:Wikipedia= Correct 90% of the time - ha ha ha

[cannuck]

Ha ha ha The Pedia is correct 90% of the time!? Can I see your data on that statement? Best example of the kind of mis-information found all over The Pedia!

{{sofixit}}

[Anonymous Coward]

You state "the problem is there's not yet any easy way to hilight the relevant or interesting parts of the discussions". this type of problem on Wikipedia is often responded to with "so fix it" in one form or another. We are entirely volunteer work. High lighting is a jugdement thing so somebody must do it if it is to be done. Where there are many discussion pages archived and peope who care to index them by subject; such indexing or hign lighting occurs at the top of the discussion page. If there is a specific Wikipedia discussion archive you wish to summarize the contents of just BE BOLD. Do it.

Wikipedia Wrong Again - "Rescue Breathing" Kills

[cannuck]

Wikipedia has it wrong again. It says to use "Rescue Breathing" for drowning persons:

"Rescue Breathing is a First Aid protocol which refers to the delivery of air from a person into a patient who has stopped breathing but continues to have a pulse. In some countries it is called Expired Air Resuscitation or EAR.

I added:

Do not use "Rescue Breathing" on a "drowned person". So-called "Rescue Breathing" will kill the drowning victim. Almost 100% of the time - a drowning person's lungs are full of water. Trying to force air into lungs that are full of water is ludicrous! Just use the "Heimlich Maneuver" to remove the water from the lungs - and almost always the "drowned person" will begin to breathe on their own!

Compare the Wikipedia and Google PC stories

[silicon not in the v]

It's hilarious that these showed up in the same installment of Slashback. These two stories show an incredible contrast. Most of the discussion so far here has focused on the Wikipedia story, and how the "news" sites are criticising it for its innaccuracy. As someone pointed out, they are strongly implying that they don't have those kinds of problems.

So, for our next trick, lets contrast the "professional media"'s attitude with what just happened with the Google PC story. Someone at the CES expo thought up the idea that Google might be coming up with a cheap PC because the CEO was coming to speak at a consumer electronics show. That rumor got picked up by an overly-excited and speculative media community and was reported by every major newspaper and magazine in the world (without checking it with Google) because no one wanted to look like they were missing out on the biggest news of the month. So yesterday, Google had to issue a press release that it was nothing but a false rumor, and they have no plans or desire to get into the low margin PC business.

Re:Mainstream media will NEVER get WikiPedia.

[pennystinker]

Granted vandalism can AND does happen on WikiPedia, in fact on ANY Wiki, I found tons of vandalism on PHPWiki's site a few months back. I just edited it out.

When this dude came across the scandalous entry about him he should have edited it, and left a note in the page discussion. Even if it was four months after it was published.

Believe it or not I was not intending my original post to be flamebait (sorry if I gave that impression), but I was truly exasperated about someone whining about something said about them on WikiPedia; edit it, please.

As far as entries about "persons" not everything on WikiPedia (or any other Wiki) will be to your liking. Unfortunately, that's life my friend: not everyone will share your opinion about yourself (or others). You can contribute your edits, but the public may override you. There may be a lesson to learn here.

The bottom line is obvious to all /.-ers: there is NO perfect system to publish information, but I'll take information I can critically edit any day over "one-way" publishing systems.

Another reason...

[tmk]

...why media can not get Wikipedia right is that Wikipedia can not get Wikipedia right.

Ask three Wikipedians what wikipedia actually is - you will get at least four different answers.

• Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia yet.
• Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopaedia.
• Wikipedia is so much more than an encyclopaedia. We don't need thos stupid restrictions of Encyclopaedia Britannica. We need vast articles about every Star Trek character.
• Wikipedia is social space where I meet my friends.
• Wikipedia is a democratic platform for world wisdom.
• ....

You can say about the Wikipedia what you want: a part of the Wikipedia community will say the very same, and the other (bigger) part will deny it.

The media is always right!

[Per Abrahamsen]

Except for the rare cases where you have direct experience about the subject. Then they are never right.

That is the experience just about everyone has with the media.

If we integrate all these experiences, we can only come to the conclusion that the media are almost never right. Which is what I believe. At least intellectually, when I actually read (or watch) a news story, I still intuitively believe that is what happened.

One good thing about the Internet is that it is usually easy to verify a news story from first hand accounts on the net. I try to do that from time to time, for subjects outside my own area of expertice. Each time, the media got it wrong.