The Dangers of Open Content

gihan_ripper writes "Recently released open movie Elephants Dream found itself in hot water with Catalonians after accidentally using an offensive word instead of 'Català' in the subtitle menu. The cause? Designer Matt Ebb had used Wikipedia to look up the Catalan word for Catalan on a day when the entry had been vandalized. He writes about this experience on the Elephant Dream blog. We may have scoffed at John Seigenthaler over his criticisms of Wikipedia, but it gives us pause for thought when we to heavily on Wikipedia."

Comments

Dangers of international content?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

I understand the dangers from using wikipedia (and like so many slashdotters have said, for serious work, use it as a starting point, not a source.)

However, this is more about the troubles with doing international work - its hard to understand the sensitivities & languages of multiple (over 30!) cultures. Companies as large as Microsoft have made mistakes like this before, withlout using open content.

a version of Windows XP aimed at Latin American markets asked users to select their gender between "not specified," "male" or "bitch."

As the (google cache) blog author says:

I also hope everyone can see the humour of it, it's a successful prankster joke we should just laugh about and then move on shrugging it off.

*shrug* - not that big a deal, and an internationalisation, not open content problem.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[JanneM]

*shrug* - not that big a deal, and an internationalisation, not open content problem.

To elaborate a bit - there's large and thriving translator communities out there for many of the worlds languages. I'd go out on a limb and say that any open project can quite easily rustle up competent (and sometimes truly expert) help for any language or localization issue.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[DiamondGeezer]

I understand the dangers from using wikipedia (and like so many slashdotters have said, for serious work, use it as a starting point, not a source.)

Why would I trust it as a starting point if I can't trust it as a source?

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Why would I trust it as a starting point if I can't trust it as a source?

You shouldn't trust any single source.

Wikipedia is a useful starting point as it will contain pointers (or at least useful search terms) to begin looking for other items to reference. It's no different to any other encyclopedia in that respect.

Surely you don't use a single soruce for information for an important project?

Re:Dangers of international content?

[stunt_penguin]

It's a shame, too, as the Elephant's Dream project looks to be material put out under a Creative Commons licence; people are encouraged to remix and re-edit the content to the extent that the makers even provide a torrent of a lossless Ogg video file (in HD, too- yay!).

More of this sort of thing, I say!

I suspect that if this kind of thing happened to Sony or Univeral Studios or another Holywood outfit that this incedent would be a half-assed lawsuit before you could say 'wiki', probably featuring some kind of attempt to expose the person who edited the Wiki, and we'd be talking about how unfair that was.

As it stands, it's a useful warning for everyone out there to check official sources if there's money or a reputation at stake. It's also a warning to defacers of content that there is the potential for being targeted if you piss off the right people.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[ultranova]

It's also a warning to defacers of content that there is the potential for being targeted if you piss off the right people.

I doubt very much that defacing Wikipedia would make you responsible for the embarrasment or monetary losses suffered by people who took that information at face value and didn't bother to check it, even in Legalistic America.

But, just to be safe: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. And, since I felt the need to say that, one might wonder if I believe in my own advice either...

Re:Dangers of international content?

[DerekLyons]

Surely you don't use a single soruce for information for an important project?

I routinely do. But then the source in question is unimpeachable and has stood the test of time and criticism. In fact, in the real world it's very common to rely on single sources, handbooks, references, etc...
 
When writing a program, you don't look up the meaning of a command in three sources do you? When wiring a house, you don't check three different copies of the electrical code. When working on your car, all you need is your Chilton's. Examples abound of routine daily use of single sources.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[fotbr]

When working on your car, all you need is your Chilton's

You don't want to know how many times I've needed to do something that WASN'T in a Chiltons. Substitute "Factory Service Manual" for "Chiltons" and I'll agree.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[siriuskase]

Why would I trust it as a starting point if I can't trust it as a source?

because it is convenient and mostly correct. Very few sources are 100% accurate. Especially something as large and comprehensive and open as Wikipedia.

The shame is that the DVD was already pressed before the translator who found the problem was able to see it. He should have sent out tapes or burned DVD's to the translators before pressing the batch for the wide release.

I do hope that this isn't the only thing we discuss about this film. He did a lot of interesting things such as the the Creative Commons licensing. Reading his blog, it seems his heart was in the right place, but he was rushed.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Pink Tinkletini]

It's no different to any other encyclopedia in that respect.

But do you really think an encyclopedia like Britannica would have had the same error? I doubt it.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Jeremi]

You don't want to know how many times I've needed to do something that WASN'T in a Chiltons. Substitute "Factory Service Manual" for "Chiltons" and I'll agree.

Sure, but that's not the problem we see here: to make the analogy correct, have you ever looked up procedure in Chiltons and found it, only to find out later that its instructions were completely (or even maliciously) wrong?

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Zemran]

All sources are opinion, fact is mearly an opinion. The problem with Wikipedia is working out whose and how accurate the opinion is. Of course it makes a good starting point from which to find other opinions and you can form your opinion from more reliable sources.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[ozmanjusri]

But do you really think an encyclopedia like Britannica would have had the same error?

You're right. You won't find a Catalan linguistic mistake in Brittanica. I wouldn't be so confidant about Dogon, Kwa, Gbe, Belarusian or Kalenjin though. Wikipedia

Re:Dangers of international content?

[brian0918]

As has been shown in the past, Britannica is chock full of errors, about as many as Wikipedia for the articles that were compared. And, who knows about the neutrality of Britannica's articles? They have "50 levels of fact checking" and yet they still leave glaring omissions and outright falsehoods; nobody has even begun to examine the neutrality of Britannica's articles.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[donscarletti]

Still, MS sometimes gets it right and gets slammed for it by delusional governments with nothing better to do than to push their slighly optimistic opinion about who parts of the world are run by onto everyone who does business with them (yes, China and India, I'm talking about you, you don't own as much land as you say you do). Then you have Saudi Arabia who didn't like it when they heard the Koran in music so they banned a game (I'm sure not many Christians or Hindus liked "My Sweet Lord" by George Harrison but it's not illegal) they also banned a game because it insinuated that Muslims turn churches into mosques (lets just say that it's been a long time since the Haiga Sofia hosted a divine liturgy).

As much as I hate MS, it is nice to see a powerful company ruffling the feathers of a few governments that have until recently thought they can expel rationality from their shores by making declarations that 1+1=3 and laws to mandate it. I hope this "cultural insensitivity" continues.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[DiamondGeezer]

Care to prove any of those statements or is it just another Wikideadhead justifying the unjustifiable?

Re:Dangers of international content?

[DiamondGeezer]

Wikipedia is a useful starting point as it will contain pointers (or at least useful search terms) to begin looking for other items to reference. It's no different to any other encyclopedia in that respect.

Surely you don't use a single soruce for information for an important project?

How do I know its a useful starting point if I don't know whether anything its telling me is correct AND the publisher disavows all errors, vandalism, falsehoods and any responsibility?

Whoever wrote that its a "faith-based" encyclopedia is right.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[DiamondGeezer]

Why would I trust it as a starting point if I can't trust it as a source?

because it is convenient and mostly correct.

But any propaganda from any extremist group is "mostly correct". It's the bits that aren't correct that bother me.

Very few sources are 100% accurate. Especially something as large and comprehensive and open as Wikipedia.

Maybe you should lookup the word "open" in a dictionary. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Also while you're looking, look up "scholarship". You won't find that on Wikipedia - just a million monkeys.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[gameforge]

When writing a program, you don't look up the meaning of a command in three sources do you?

Regularly. And only then do I get a complete description, if not find an error in one.

When wiring a house, you don't check three different copies of the electrical code.

If one, even. Really, if there were multiple versions (not copies) released at the same time, of course I would look at all of them.

When working on your car, all you need is your Chilton's.

And that's exactly why my interior door panel on my old 1993 Grand Am held on for dear life by three screws. Sure it was my fault for not being gentle; but the factory shop manual, I discovered, had a full blown illustration and much more detailed procedure. Chiltons and Haynes both throw five models over ten years into one book, making it useless for anything but drivetrain work. They may as well cut the interior and body work out of their manuals entirely, along with much of the electrical and vacuum system stuff.

Again, if Pontiac made several publications with varying but similar information, I'd want all of them, and I did own both the Haynes and Chiltons manuals, occasionally referring to all of them.

The point is, you really can't trust any source of information unless you've personally witnessed the accuracy of the information (i.e. it's your research, etc.) Information comes from imperfect humans, and you simply can't trust that 100% (if 10% in some cases). That's fundamental, not practical; if it turns out most of the info you research is accurate enough for your needs, which happens most of the time, you'll be okay for the most part.

Wikipedia is ultimately more helpful than it is harmful, but if you choose to use it for a single source of information where it's critical that the information be accurate, you HAVE to double check the info at least, if not simply use it to acquire other sources. Reason: There's no blaming Wikipedia and holding them responsible for your embarassing and possibly consequential mistake in your work.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[jdbartlett]

Because every good Wikipedia article cites its references. Good references will have an ISBN or hyperlink attached. Those references can then be studied and judged on their own merit.

Suddenly, a lot more of your research paper has been done for you.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[gameforge]

Hmm, I think I meant to reply to the parent poster, but was sidetracked by your true comment about Chiltons' manuals being mailcious and destructive. Sorry. :)

Glad I included the OP's text...

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Pink Tinkletini]

So I'm just as much at risk of seeing an offensive word instead of an accurate translation in Britannica as in Wikipedia? Somehow, I still don't think so.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[fotbr]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have, and here's the reason:

Chiltons likes to take multiple generations of the same model, as well as other models based on the same platform, and combine them all into one book. For example: 1984 - 1993 Chevy Cavalier, Pontiac Sunbird, and some form of Buick all were based on the same platform. During that time there was a body change, the move to fuel-injected engines, multiple engine changes, a transmission change for the models with automatic transmissions, not to mention all the various differences between the different brands and of course the differences based on options the car was purchased with. Chances are the procedure you find won't be correct for your car. You might be able to do all the steps in the procedure, but you won't end up with the same result because your particular car has a slightly different revision of the engine control unit, but there was no way to tell that because the Chiltons doesn't give you that much detail.

Now, they've gotten "better" about that in newer manuals. By leaving out HOW to do things. Remove Part Y. Except Part Y is blocked by parts T, U, V and W, but the manual says that you must leave parts V and X in place or you can't fix part Y. This way they're not telling you anything incorrect, they're just not telling you anything.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[fuzzy12345]

>> Why would I trust it as a starting point if I can't trust it as a source?

> You shouldn't trust any single source.

This is just crap. If I ask a cop for directions, should I ask another one, even if the first one seemed sure? Do you carry two companies maps of the same area in your car? Do slashdotters advise other slashdotters to consult two lawyers independently for legal advice? How many households own multiple dictionaries? How many people have the time to read two daily newspapers, or watch two channels' weather forecasts on TV?

Get bent! If a doc says you've got cancer and have six months, a second opinion is probably wise. But dog help me if I were to go through life double checking every supposed fact from supposed sources of information.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[MightyMartian]

Here's the basic rule of any encyclopedia (online or otherwise). They're starting points. They should never be considered final or definitive. Go to the literature if you want that.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[xouumalperxe]

The same way a police investigator might use the word of a known criminal as a lead to further investigation, rather than proof in and of itself.
And because you can actually background check any one wikipedia article quite a bit more than the afore mentioned known criminal.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

When writing a program, you don't look up the meaning of a command in three sources do you? When wiring a house, you don't check three different copies of the electrical code. When working on your car, all you need is your Chilton's. Examples abound of routine daily use of single sources.

No - I don't use an encyclopedia for any of them, I would use a specialised source, perhaps using wikipedia/other encyclopedia to find out what that specialised source was. That was the mistake the guy we're discussing made - he should have used wikipedia to point him to a localization authority's page on language localisation. (not that I'm criticising him, heavy workload and all that).

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Who235]

Well, it was in Wikipedia. . .

Re:Dangers of international content?

[brian0918]

Are you new to slashdot? Have you seen any of the past stories comparing Britannica and Wikipedia? The comparison done by the journal Nature, for one example. I'm not saying trust Wikipedia. I'm saying don't trust either source by themselves.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[ChaosDiscord]

Why would I trust it as a starting point if I can't trust it as a source?

Trust it about as much as you'd trust the internet as whole. Be realistic; if you're mildly curious about something new to you and you want a quick overview, don't you plug the term into Google and do some quick reading? The results could come from anywhere: hoaxers, someone with a strongly biased agenda, or someone who did bad research (including possibly using Wikipedia). And yet most of the time it's Good Enough. Wikipedia on average is better organized, better written, and more accurate than the internet as whole. If there is a dispute over the topic the entire revision history is transparent so you can see what sort of disagreements have gone on.

Add to this an increased focus in Wikipedia on citing sources. Wikipedia is still far behind where it should be, but progress is being made. As more and more citations are made it's easier for you to check the claims in Wikipedia and better use it as a starting point. (True, the cited works themselves may be flawed, but that's a problem all research has.)

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Tatarize]

>>I'd go out on a limb and say that any open project can quite easily rustle up competent (and sometimes truly expert) help for any language or localization issue.

I don't think this is an issue. I mean, Elephant's Dream sucked in English and even properly translated would have issues. I think that, if rather than the dialog in the flick they said profane words... it would have been much more watchable.

Proves we could do CGI... and we should figure out scriptwriting.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[jdbartlett]

The same error? It would be especially alarming as we're talking about the effects of a vandal.

But an error? Any error? That's a given.

I'm not saying that the difference in reliability between Britannica and Wikipedia is as small as one study has shown, just that there is a big difference between "reliable" and "error free". Quoting either the Britannica or Wikipedia in book or paper is a sin of lazy researchers. They're encyclopedias. Their purpose is to offer a general overview of many subjects. Everything is a lot of stuff: too much to always be right.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[brian0918]

"So I'm just as much at risk of seeing an offensive word instead of an accurate translation in Britannica as in Wikipedia? Somehow, I still don't think so."

WTF?? So, the only way you can win an argument is by turning it into another argument? We were talking about factual accuracy and neutrality. But, I showed your argument was bullshit. So, you decided to switch over to "offensive words". I don't have any data on that, as nobody has looked into it, so I can't help you. If you want to assume one way or the other, that is your choice to make, but it is an ignorant choice nonetheless, not based in reality. My guess is that you would have to take a random sample larger than the size of Britannica before coming across an "offensive word" that is vandalism in Wikipedia, simply because Britannica is so much smaller than Wikipedia, but that guess isn't based on anything either.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[brian0918]

"Care to prove any of those statements or is it just another Wikideadhead justifying the unjustifiable?"

As for the neutrality of your comment, let's just hope you don't work for Britannica.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Pink Tinkletini]

My guess is that you would have to take a random sample larger than the size of Britannica before coming across an "offensive word" that is vandalism in Wikipedia, simply because Britannica is so much smaller than Wikipedia...

Considering that I've already come across several instances of "offensive" vandalism in the relatively little (compared to Britannica's size) I've read of Wikipedia, I'd venture that's mistaken.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[DiamondGeezer]

No I don't. But if I did, I'd still want an answer from someone who made a series of allegations against Britannica without proof.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[chris_eineke]

When writing a program, you don't look up the meaning of a command in three sources do you? When wiring a house, you don't check three different copies of the electrical code. When working on your car, all you need is your Chilton's.

Your analogy is flawed.

When I program in three different languages, I will have to look up the meaning of a command in at least three sources.
When I wire a house in two different countries, I will have to check at least two different copies of the electrical code.
When I work on someone else's car, I will have to check at least one different car manual.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[DiamondGeezer]

Yes. Did you know that Britannica replied with a devastating complaint against the Nature "study" showing that it was utterly false?

You should.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[cyrax256]

Surely you don't use a single soruce for information for an important project?

I don't use a single source for information on an important project... And don't call me Shirley!

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Alleged errors in Britannica - the first (amsuingly):

Largest English-language Encyclopedia

The Encyclopædia Britannica article "Encyclopædia Britannica" indicates that the Encyclopædia Britannica is "the oldest and largest English-language general encyclopaedia". It is still the oldest. But it is now the second-largest to Wikipedia as measured by number of words and number of articles, among other standards. (Source: Wikipedia article "Wikipedia") -- Creidieki 16:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

They are still making the false claim, but then in their retort to Nature they charmingly described Wikipedia as a "database". Hawkestone 22:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Dangers of international content?

[DiamondGeezer]

But it is now the second-largest to Wikipedia as measured by number of words and number of articles, among other standards.

Standards like accuracy not being one of them.

They've managed to list some 60 errors in Britannica. Jeebus knows how many factual errors are in Wikipedia - and no it isn't my responsibility to fix them.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Scoth]

My favorite mistake was in the Chilton's manual I had for my '83 Firebird years back. The process for changing the wiper motor had step 1 as "disconnect the battery cable at the negative terminal" and step 2 was "raise the hood". Still makes me smile all these years later.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[brian0918]

Of course I knew about that. Did you know about Nature's reply to Britannica's reply? Britannica has vested interest in maintaining credibility, so I wouldn't take their initial reply as gospel, as you seem to.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[brian0918]

"They've managed to list some 60 errors in Britannica. Jeebus knows how many factual errors are in Wikipedia - and no it isn't my responsibility to fix them."

So, because you don't know and are unwilling to find evidence to compare Britannica to Wikipedia, and disregard evidence that was provided by a peer-reviewed journal, clearly Wikipedia is full of errors? Nonsense.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[kd5ujz]

If I was creating a map, you can bet your ass I would consult more than one map, otherwise you are just creating the same damn map. If you are writing a paper,creating a map, or writing a news article, you had better make damn sure you know what you are talking about, not rely on one article.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[brian0918]

Ahh, and now we have hearsay. Would you care to back that up with evidence, without resorting to vandalizing Wikipedia articles yourself? Click Random Article in the Wikipedia sidebar as many times as is necessary until you find offensive words that are vandalism. Now select as many random Britannica articles as is necessary to come across an offensive word (you can do that by using a random number generator to generate 7-digit numbers and plug the numbers into the Britannica URL, for example, http://search.eb.com/ebc/article-9368545 . Then, repeat the experiment a dozen or so times, and average your results. Until you've done that, your argument is baseless.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[julesh]

Why would I trust it as a starting point if I can't trust it as a source?

Because, according to Wikipedia rules, each article is supposed to contain a collection of links to authoritative sources that contain all of the information in the article[1]. Hopefully, you know enough to be able to assess when a source is trustworthy and therefore you are able to verify that the information is, if not correct, at least as likely to be correct as it would be if you had found it in (e.g.) Britannica.

OK, in order to do this, you need to have a little understanding of evaluation of sources (e.g. don't trust stuff by unnamed individuals, don't trust self-published articles except when they're talking about the author and even then not if they seem self-aggrandising, etc.)

[1]: Yes, I'm aware there are a huge number of articles on Wikipedia that don't follow this rule. But most of them are articles you wouldn't normally expect to find in an encyclopedia anyway, because they're about fringe topics.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Znork]

Reading the reply in question, yes, there definitely is a lot of complaining going on.

However, it hardly shows the Nature study to be particularly false; mostly I see Britannica complaining about Nature being unfair, and/or expecting too much of an encyclopedia.

I mean, comments like "we are not a botanical encyclopedia, and dont pretend to be"? That's an excuse, not a valid objection. And, in the case of an Britannica Vs. Wikipedia accuracy evaluation, a completely irrelevant excuse; the same standards of consideration would apply to both.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Knuckles]

But any propaganda from any extremist group is "mostly correct".

I take it you've never been to a neonazi website.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[pimpimpim]

Actually, I do. When I learned for my exams at school, I found out that it was often the best to take at least 2 different sources, as the people who wrote the book did this in a certain style and with a certain background that was often different from what I wanted to know exactly. Combining several sources really helped me through college, and still helps me (also when coding).

Furthermore, you don't want to know how many mistakes or misconceptions (often for the sake of simplicity) there can be in handbooks, especially in academics. If you use data from handbooks, be sure to do a double check with severl different and recent sources.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[ScrewMaster]

No, a fact is a fact. That is why it is a fact, because a fact is a reflection of what is. If it were not a fact, then it would be a belief, an opinion, mere fiction. You cannot redefine what is simply by believing that it is different than it is. But it is true that much data published as fact is nothing but fiction, and the chief complaint about Wikipedia is that one cannot immediately discern which is which. On the other hand, Wikipedia doesn't claim to be an authoritative source on anything, although many people seem to assume it is because it has "pedia" in the name. This usually means that they haven't typed the word "wiki" into Wikipedia. If they did, they'd probably have a better understanding of what they are dealing with and might feel less inclined to lodge irrational complaints.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Raul654]

Did you know that Britannicaresponded to less than half of the mistakes picked up by Nature? And to date Britannica has not fixed any of them? (Wikipedia fixed every last one) And that, of the ones they did respond to, a number of Britannica's responses were laughable. One nature reviewer said that a particular Britannica article on a particular plant genus could apply to any of 10 other genesus. Britannica's response - "It's OK, because we're not an encyclopedia of botany and don't claim to be". In other words, "it's not a bug, it's feature"

Re:Dangers of international content?

[stunt_penguin]

"I doubt very much that defacing Wikipedia would make you responsible for the embarrasment or monetary losses suffered by people who took that information at face value"

IANAL either but I don't think it really makes you responsible at all, even though you were defacing something that others might just happen to rely on. It wouldn't stop the lawyers though :0/

Re:Dangers of international content?

[JourneyExpertApe]

When writing a program, you don't look up the meaning of a command in three sources do you?

Unfortunately, yes, I do. I have to work with Access, so I am forced to seek out several different sources. Microsoft's documentation is often incomplete and sometimes incorrect. Online Access tutorials and references abound, but they are not a whole lot better. I have a two-inch thick book just about Access, but it doesn't always have the answers to my questions, and many of it's suggestions are bad.

If you want to see the importance of seeking out multiple sources, just look at the References section of any peer-reviewed publication.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Bartmoss]

No, professionals wiring a house don't consult a book, they know what they are doing.

And they do make mistakes. Like all humans. Such mistakes just rarely make slashdot.

Using several sources - or specialists - would lower the risk of mistakes happening, and yet it will still happen. You might not realize this, but there is no such thing as eleminating the chance of failure.

Using a single source that you yourself cannot at least check for plausbility is inviting such problems at an unnecessarily high rate.

Bottom line of TFA: If you publish text in a language you do not understand - have a proof reader.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[The Snowman]

My favorite mistake was in the Chilton's manual I had for my '83 Firebird years back. The process for changing the wiper motor had step 1 as "disconnect the battery cable at the negative terminal" and step 2 was "raise the hood". Still makes me smile all these years later.

Some cars don't have the battery under the hood. Friend of mine had a 1983 Corvette and the battery was behind the driver's seat. In that case I could see disconnecting the battery first, although it doesn't matter if the hood is up or down. I'm guessing your car had it in a front corner under the hood if you found it humorous, though.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[wolrahnaes]

have you ever looked up procedure in Chiltons and found it, only to find out later that its instructions were completely (or even maliciously) wrong?

Yes. I have both the Chiltons and Haynes manuals for my '93 Crown Vic, and the Chiltons guide for removing the dashboard was not just missing information, it was completely wrong. As others have noted, this is because they try to cover too many models with one book. The books I have cover every Crown Vic amd Grand Marquis from the late '80s (302 or 351 pushrod V8, AOD, "Box" body) through the mid-90s (4.6L SOHC V8, AOD/AODE/4R70W, "Aero" body) and even on to the first version of the current model (4.6L "PI" V8, 4R70W, "Modern Aero" body). I'm sure there's a revision on the market now that adds the current models of the "Modern Aero" models with a different frame, suspension, steering system, and now an updated tranny.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[DiamondGeezer]

But the report wasn't peer reviewed. In fact it was a con. Britannica protested that the report did not compare mistakes with mistakes nor even full articles with full articles.

Read all about it.

Not all of us are as gullible as you.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[DiamondGeezer]

Isn't it germaine that Nature refused to let Britannica see those reports?

Perhaps the next time you're arrested, the police don't bother showing the evidence that you've committed a crime. After all you're just a vested interest.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[BrynM]

Care to prove any of those statements or is it just another Wikideadhead justifying the unjustifiable?

I think you meant to say {{citation needed}}

The Nature article can be found here. My favorite part is the rebuttal of the rebuttal by Britannica which can be found in pDF form here. At leats the Wikipedia folks know they can't always be accurate and dont't resort to lying when they are found to be wrong.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Scoth]

Yeah, my MR2 has it under the spare tire in the front hood while the engine is in the back. The aforementioned Firebird's was in the corner under the hood, and the mental image of someone scrabbling around under the car trying to get the battery unhooked before raising the hood amused me. Although, even needing to have a "raise the hood" step strikes me as a bit odd, but then I've always been one that needs minimal instruction.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[brian0918]

Yes, you already pointed to me to that, and I pointed you to the Nature's reply to Britannica's reply. I've read all of them, as should you.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Raul654]

Incorrect. Nature released the data about a month after they ran the story. If you google around, you can find the pdf which contains the exact errors per article.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[The Wicked Priest]

Wikipedia can sometimes help in these situations, too. For example, I was doing much what Ebb did -- using Wikipedia to look up the official names of some languages -- and in the process, I learned for the first time that the term "Español", though commonplace in the western hempisphere, is controversial within Spain itself.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[aichpvee]

I could put up with the dialog and acting (the emokid's voice is REALLY annoying) if they just had competent animation. Seriously, did they plan the whole project out and THEN think about how it would move?

Replacing all the dialog with swear words would be pretty cool. Considering that the source frames are available and they have a karaoke/dubbing track out for the audio I might just have to do it myself.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Tatarize]

I have 1.2 TB of harddrive space distributed across my network. Elephant Dream sucked so bad I deleted it to save the 400 megs worth of space. Had it been a CGI version of Strip Tease, I would still have the damned thing.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Bing Tsher E]

You know, what you just wrote is really weird. You seem to imply that only an organization that doesn't have a vested interest in maintaining credibility can be relied on.

Think about it.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[brian0918]

You haven't been to Wikipedia much, have you? Do you just read the mischaracterizations on Slashdot?

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Lillesvin]

Yeah, this is definitely not an open content problem, it's more of a "double-check your sources" type of problem. If I had to trust my english teacher from some years back, then I'd be calling everyone I found cute for "pussy"...

Re:Dangers of international content?

[plumby]

Why would I trust it as a starting point if I can't trust it as a source?

A specific example from last night. I was having a discussion on a different forum about Israel and their occupation of the Golan Heights. As part of the discussion, I went to the Wikipedia article about the Golan Heights and found a reference to UN Security Council Resolution 497. Based on that, I was able to lookup the actual resolution text to verify what had been written in Wikipedia.

I wouldn't have trusted Wikipedia's word alone (certainly not on something as contraversial as that), but it's a good place to get information which you can then verify through other sources.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Chapter80]

Companies as large as Microsoft have made mistakes

Precisely! I wonder why the Chevy Nova never sold well in Spanish speaking countries! Something about "No Va" meaning "won't go"?

Re:Dangers of international content?

[Przepla]

This is just crap. If I ask a cop for directions, should I ask another one, even if the first one seemed sure?

I wouldn't, but my girlfriend would.

Do you carry two companies maps of the same area in your car?

As funny as it might seems, I usually carry two maps of the same area in my backpack. One has better coverage of buildings numbers, and the other one better described public communication.

Do slashdotters advise other slashdotters to consult two lawyers independently for legal advice?

No, but I am a lawyer and so is my girlfriend, and I frequently consult with her, so effectively I consult two lawyers: myself and my girlfriend.

How many households own multiple dictionaries?

Mine do.

How many people have the time to read two daily newspapers, or watch two channels' weather forecasts on TV?

I do read two or three daily newspapers and consult two different online weather forecasts.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[brian0918]

Err... You do realize that you'll only find Simpsons and South Park articles if you go looking for them, right? So, what's the problem? Wikipedia's most prolific Featured Article writer (featured articles being the most detailed and complete of all articles) writes strictly about British royalty. What does that have to do with the Simpsons, South Park, pop culture, or anything in your rants?

Re:Dangers of international content?

[The Snowman]

Maybe it was an 82, maybe you're full of shit, Mr. Coward. I don't know. I'm not a Corvette expert.

Re:Dangers of international content?

[kd5ujz]

I think its a fair bet that Magellen uses USGS maps.

Wikipedia grammar?

[thc69]

when we to heavily on Wikipedia

Nuff said.

Re:Wikipedia grammar?

[Sam H]

Bad luck, you visited Slashdot the day it was vandalised.

Re:Wikipedia grammar?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Bad luck, you visited Slashdot the day it was vandalised.

You are right. The grammar is better than usual, so we should assume the vandals improved it.

Re:Wikipedia grammar?

[Bloke down the pub]

It spelling mistake, but it also grammar mistake: subordinate clause not any verb.

Oops.

[CCFreak2K]

I find this funny that it's right on the heels of the new release of Blender article. I believe the saying goes:

If you have an open mind, people will throw a lot of garbage into it.

Slashdot is good for something

[ColdWetDog]

We appear to have slashdotted the blog. Can we have more of these articles please?

And to stay remotely on topic - don't publish ANYTHING that you've obtained from ANYWHERE as a single source bit of information. Research. Research and re search again.

well...

[joe 155]

it doesn't seem like this is too bad a problem... still, it does show you I guess that Wikipedia can't always be trusted and maybe shouldn't be in a professional setting. Of course it might show that it is important to double check any source because nothing is infallible

All this really does

[also-rr]

is show the importance of checking multiple sources, especially when you are relying on it for something important! However, I believe that Wikipedia is already looking at a stable version, in which a stable and unstable branch of the project are maintained with the unstable changes merged in reguarly. This would remove problems like this one, for the most part anyway.

Re:All this really does

[Ubergrendle]

Mod parent up. Anyone versed in serious writing, be it journalism/english lit/history test/etc knows that you must validate your sources at a minimum of 2 times, preferably 3. When you have a sole source of knowledge, it must be identified as such.

Remember "All the President's Men"? Bernstein and Woodward did what CBS forgot to do w/ the supposed Bush service records -- validate with independent sources. When you don't you get burned, sooner or later.

Re:All this really does

[Bastian]

I'd also like to see Wikipedia implement a feature where any text that has changed recently is somehow highlighted. That way any schmoe who browses through is at least being made aware that the content he's reading may currently be the subject of vandalism or an argument or something.

Is Wikipedia really wrong on this?

[9x320]

I ask because oddly the Catalan Wikipedia uses "català," and the English Wikipedia uses "català" on the sidebar to direct you to the Catalan equivalent of an article. I can't access the article because it's Slashdotted. Is it really wrong, and why?

Re:Is Wikipedia really wrong on this?

[Ghiblian]

From reading the summary of the article, it appears "català" is the correct term. You misread the statement, which says "using an offensive word instead of 'Català'." I don't know if the article actually references the "offensive word" since MirrorDot appears to have cached the page while it was down...

Re:Is Wikipedia really wrong on this?

[9x320]

Oh, now I see! Darn old Slashdot linked to the wrong revision! Maybe they meant this one where they used the word "Polaco" everywhere? It took eleven hours for it to be fixed in this revision. I guess all the Wikipedians with this article on their watchlists were asleep at the wheel?

Re:Is Wikipedia really wrong on this?

[Tirs]

Fixed? I fixed it myself, and your comment appears to be previous to mine! :-S

Re:Is Wikipedia really wrong on this?

[jo7hs2]

The current version still has the word spread around it.

Re:Is Wikipedia really wrong on this?

[9x320]

That's just because some idiots saw the Slashdot article and are trying to repeat the vandalism. It seems to have been removed again now. I'll keep a close eye on it.

Native speakers needed

[OzPeter]

I have always believed that when you need something translated into a language you need to have a native speaker at least review what you have done. So many companies have screwed this up to the point that things like japanese/english is a standing joke.

If you are going to devote so much effort to producing a product (closed or open source), then why the hell do you piss around with half arsed guesses as to how to translate text?

On the other hand I did have an interesting time with a russian girl once. We were using a dictionary to converse by pointing at words and reading off our native langueages. The trouble was that I missed the context of "to like" which in the sense she was using it had elements of "to love". End result was that it cost me 8 hours, a bottle of champagne, chocolates and a taxi ride home for her ;-)

Re:Native speakers needed

[gEvil (beta)]

So many companies have screwed this up to the point that things like japanese/english is a standing joke.

While Engrish can be pretty amusing, English/English can be just as bad. By that, I mean that documentation and words written by native English speakers are often atrocious. For an example simply read the last sentence of the story submission.

Re:Native speakers needed

[despisethesun]

This is very true. I post on a message board with a community that spreads across Europe (and North America), and it seems like the Germans, Spaniards, and Poles all use better grammar and spelling than most of the native English speakers on the board.

Re:Native speakers needed

[kfg]

look at the slang word 'fanny' for an English example. It means a person's butt in Britain, but a woman's genitalia in America

An American friend of mine wrote a humourous song called "L.A.F.F.", Ladies Against Fanny Floss. It's an anti-thong bathing suit song. It made it onto Dr. Demento and was far more popular in Australia than in her native America, because:

In America 'fanny' means butt, but in Australia it means a woman's genitalia.

However, there are areas in America's southeast where it does mean a woman's genitalia (maybe it has something to do with old, ummmmmmm, penal colonies), although this meaning is dying out to match the rest of American usage.

Even if you ask a native speaker it can still be very hard to get right, because "right" may have regional variations, as well as time variations.

Zounds!

KFG

Fact-checking and Wikipedia

[spiffyman]

Frankly, Mr. Ebb should have known better. As a copy editor at what may be the most prestigious college paper in the U.S., I can attest to Wikipedia's occasional (though not pervasive) errors. Because of these, I have a standing policy of referring to Wikipedia only for corroboration, not confirmation. Anyone who fact-checks - for a living or otherwise - should already have in mind things like source bias, credibility, etc.

Re:Fact-checking and Wikipedia

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Did you really just say that the paper you work for, The Daily Texan (University of Texas at Austin) "may be the most prestigious college paper in the U.S." and then go on to decry source bias and credibility???

Re:Fact-checking and Wikipedia

[spiffyman]

Errr, touché. ;-)

But there are various facts to back up my claim, such as the caliber of many of our ex-staffers (Cronkite and Moyers are just two); our very high circulation (which I think is the highest in the country); and the fact that the major Texan dailies refer to us as "The Daily Texan" and not "the Daily Texan, student newspaper of the University of Texas at Austin," indicating some respect for the work we do.

Now, you may be referring to the fact that we have a reputation here as a liberal paper/city/university. Fair enough. But, you know, that's why you should keep source bias in mind.

Re:Fact-checking and Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the Daily Texan "may" be the most prestigious college newspaper in the U.S.

But then, there may really be underpants gnomes as well. Almost anything "may" possibly be true.

But having read the Daily Texan, if it's the most prestigious college paper, then I would worry about the state of college newspapers.

Re:Fact-checking and Wikipedia

[Lane.exe]

I used to write for the Texan, and even had a few of my columns syndicated on newswire services. The DT is a widely-respected newspaper in the college-newspaper circles.

Re:Fact-checking and Wikipedia

[Bing Tsher E]

then I would worry about the state of college newspapers.

That goes without saying.

"When you flunk Calculus, and then are thrown out of the English Department, you can always transfer to J-School."

is open content the real problem?

[a10_es]

I'm catalan. And I can say that lately there's been a lot of hatred against our nation pushed by some spanish political parties (Yet I don't to turn this into a political discussion). This problem appeared because of a vandalized entry in wikipedia, but could also have appeared if a person had modified the film or written it wrong from the start, so the problem here is not the reliance on open content, but the reliance on people's goodness, which in the open [content, source, ...] is mostly there, but can be displaced by some feelings, most of them learnt and fueled since childhood. But the same thing's been happening throughout the history. Surely if you looked on recognized encyclopedias some time ago, a lot of entries about slaves would be unaccpetable by today standards. The same happens over conquered soil after a war, when the losers become the vermin that had to be erradicated and the winners the saviors of the people (and usually end up being as bad as those they overthrew). And many other examples could be given. So the problem here is the open content or close-minded people?

Re:is open content the real problem?

[Argantonio]

I'm Spaniard. The catalans are using racist guerrilla tactics to be independent instead of using democratic ways. Therefore there is no problem at all in not including Catalan language in a DVD or in including it in a wrong way, because each catalan has the right and obligation of knowing it and using it.

Re:is open content the real problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Spainard also. Catalans (and Basques) have been ruled by Nacionalists for 26 (or 27?) straight years. They had use their total control on media, and public colleges on their territory to impose new generations their deformed view of reality, something that right now most catalans cannot perceive. They have rewritten the history that is thaught at schools (a lot of these manipulations have been denounced on media, warning about them), they have formed terrorists groups with politic parties to get public subventions and political immunity. I have seen ads were they teach kids NOT to talk in spanish whatsoever!! By law, cartoons must be emited in two languages. Instead of using Català and Spanish (the two official languages in Catalunya), they use Català and Japanese!

They are trying to break all bonds with Spain, because otherwise independency would be too traumatic. They started creating their own language (Català and Basque had their grammars reinvented , because they were lost), they are replacing spanish symbols by their own, and they are now trying to "conquer" territory (Valencia, Baleares, Navarra, South of France) because otherwise their fresh "new Nations" wouldn't be able to survive by themselves! Language was meant to unite, not divide. Damn Nationalists!! :(

This is a message to everybody. Spain is going to explode in the following years, with that stupid president trying to reavivate the Civil War (disbanding historical archives, giving condecorations to mass murderers, removing statues of Franco, etc), and transfering the judicial power to nationalists (which they have already done).

All these things gives plenty reasons to hate the Nationalist leaders and their breed, but this is no reason to attack Catalans, or Català. They are just victims of the men at charge. If you are Català under 30 years, you just don't understand how badly they have messed with you. The rest of Spain did a boicot to Catalan products because the politics started (with public money) a campaign called "Compreu, no compreu" to boicot products from the rest of Spain! This was not an attack against Catalans, it was a way to tell the politics that they were going too far!!

I feel sorry for the one that made the DVD, he should have known that Spanish and Català wikipedia aren't places for accurate info.

Re:is open content the real problem?

[bufalo_1973]

So if you can have only TWO languages (left channel - right channel) and the original is in Japanese and the language you use is Catalonian, where should Spanish go? Is there a "middle channel" nobody hears but you? And about refueling the Civil War, what does someone you know when insults every polititian that doesn't want to send to jail all comunists, socialists, nacionalists, and even insults an ex-president that is ill (alzheimer)? Is this a way to let memories rest?

You have to read something more than El Mundo and hear something more than Cadena COPE.

And I think separatism is stupid right now. Just like fascist painted in 'neoliberalism', the one those you hear and read spit over Spain, a country I love for its diversity, for its culture and for its freedom. Freedom that only two groups seem to be right now threatening: ETA, with physical terrorism and your 'comrades': PP + El Mundo + Cadena COPE, with psicological terrorism. And don't tell me these aren't your 'comrades' because what you say is exactly what they say (specialy COPE).

Re:is open content the real problem?

[bufalo_1973]

About the ads: one of them, for example, had a teacher in class showing to the classroom a picture of a Dog, and asking how it was called. One kid answered "El perro!" (dog in spanish), and the teacher corrected him "El Gos, el Gos. Molt bè!", maybe I'm looking too much on it, but I think that implies that talking in spanish is incorrect. :-/

That implies both languages are official. Spanish and Catalonian are (if law is followed) strictly equal. If you know someone is going against art. 3 of the Constitution, go to a Court and fill a case against this crime. And is just as criminal to go against Spanish as going against Catalonian where they are both official.

And about the ad hominem: I'm not saying the happy family (PP + COPE + El Mundo) doesn't says some things that are true. But about this particular case, is difficult to find something not forged. And is a real shame, because I'd like to have a real right party, but right doesn't mean to get closer to extreme right. And the same could be said about the left parties (I don't put PSOE amongst them. They aren't there) when they get radical. I want a country were you don't have to say you vote some party without looking around searching possible 'angry looks'. And today, voting PP is looking for them. Not because the people that votes them aren't good people (some close familiars of mine vote them), but because their party's leaders behave like kids when they don't need it to erode the PSOE. Zapatero is doing enough things wrong (p.e. LPI, RTVE, ...), so the PP doesn't need to imagine new ones that can backfire. Can't Rajoy use the Salamanca papers much better than what he did? Why not say if this papers go there we want Zaragoza's art that's in Barcelona to go back to Zaragoza. And the same with the Bous from Majorca? This way they could be seen by all as a party that defends the whole people, not the party that only wants a fight whenever and wherever with the Government. But now they don't want to stop this fight that it's over (politically) throwing more shit with the 11M. It's their way, but I think they are wrong. A shame.

Oh, and cleaning Terra Mitica could help too.

P.S.: I'm sorry for the tone of the other post. But I'm tired of this stupid political fight we have in Spain.

Re:is open content the real problem?

[tehcyder]

I'm a Spainard

IANAS, but some of my friends are...

They started creating their own language (Català and Basque had their grammars reinvented , because they were lost)

Well, the other way of looking at things is that in fact the Castilians tried to suppress the Basque and Catalan languages for many years.

removing statues of Franco

Well, boo fucking hoo. Note to self: don't mention the war.

If you are Català under 30 years, you just don't understand how badly they have messed with you

And if you are a Catalan over 30 years you will understand only too well how badly the rest of Spain has been messing with you.

WikiMapia and the potential for spying/stalking

[Rachel Lucid]

I pondered a similar question when it came to marking schools on WikiMapia - Does the benefits to students/moms being able to pinpoint their child's school for their own mapping purposes justify the risk in pointing out these locations to potential paedos and other child predators?

I decided to take solace in the fact anyone that serious would have already mapped it themselves rather than depend on an open-source map ganked from Google in the first place.

De-vandalized

[Tirs]

Just for your info, guys: I just visited the article and removed the offensive terms, also leaving a small explanative note about the term itself just in case someone hears it again knows what it is all about.

A_10_es: si et plau, dóna-li una ullada quan puguis, a veure si m'he deixat alguna cosa. Gràcies.
[A_10_es: please, give it an eyeball when you have a moment, to see if I forgot something. Thank you.]

That was a sample of Catalan language; will somebody give me a +1=Informative? ;-)

Re:De-vandalized

[Tim the Gecko]

Just for your info, guys: I just visited the article and removed the offensive terms, also leaving a small explanative note about the term itself just in case someone hears it again knows what it is all about.

You edited a version from April 7th and therefore you overwrote all the edits people have made over the last three months. You also managed to miss about 10 stray "Polacos" scattered through your old starting version of the article. The article was reverted and had no "Polacos" at all, but it now seems to have been reverted to your version again.
I hope you will have a long and happy relationship with Wikipedia, and get an account there

Re:De-vandalized

[Tirs]

I seldom use Wikipedia, precisely because I do not trust such an uncontrolled flow of information (and this case proved my point). But since Catalans are a minority in the world (Compare: how many people would be able to correct an offending article about the US, for example?) I decided to go ahead and fix it.
Yes, I am not used to the Wikipedia interface, so I used the "Save" button in the middle of the work, and when I was going to do the second, definitive saving, I found that the article was "Protected or Half Protected". So much for an open and free encyclopedia!

By the way: I already have an account, created several months ago to post an article I don't remember what about, and somebody overwrote it a few days later with no apparent reason (both articles were quite similar).

Don't misunderstand me: I think Wikipedia is, by design, a good idea; the problem is the implementation. The Wikipedia fails to take into account the intrincacies of its own most important component: human beings. Wikipedia relies on the idea that each and every human being is perfect: no mistakes (like the one I apparently made) and no weasel-behaved, evil people who dump their hatred against minorities at each opportunity they have, even without thinking about the consequences their lies can have to third parties (which is what actually brought us to this thread).

We are to used to suffer such type of aggresions and we already learned to take them with a grain of humour but, were Catalan people from U.S. heritage, we probably would sue the producers of Elephants Dream.

By the way: I just clicked the link in Slashdot, then clicked on "Edit this article". Why did I get an outdated version? If this happens, something is flawed.

Re:De-vandalized

[Tirs]

[WARNING: SOME FOUL LANGUAGE USED FOR A CLEARER EXPLANATION]

Besides that, his knowledge of English is quite despisable, because everyone knows that "coño" does not mean "fuck" but "cunt". If he wanted to say "fuck", he should have used "joder" instead of "coño".

Taco's grammar?

[1u3hr]

Well, no one would use Taco as an authority on grammar, or anything else, come to think of it.

Proofreading?

[Wonko the Sane]

Isn't this more of a case study of not proofreading the final product rather than relying on an unreliable source? The list of names could have been emailed to all the translators first before finalizing the DVD.

Joeri and thousands of screaming fans here were rightfully pestering me to get it done as fast as possible,

I think I found the real problem.

Re:Proofreading?

[jdunlevy]

Definitely. Also, on the blog, he mentions "Guifré, our Catalan subtitle translator"; instead of just having the translator proofread the work, why hadn't the heading for that translator's language originated with the translator in the first place instead of with wikipedia?

Obligatory comment

[Spy der Mann]

lol Pwned! :P

Been there, done that...

[(H)elix1]

I do a fair bit of international coding. Problem is, I am not fluent in many of the languages I am building software. When putting together my language bundles, I always have someone do a quick walkthrough of the application who knows the language and context. You cannot count on software to give you a proper translation. Last year I was building some portlets for a French company. I added navigation and hit the fish to translate some of the finishing touches. I added a 'back' button - only to find the word I used was a person's back (not return to the previous step) in my i18n resource bundle.

How do they say - nothing is as permanent as that which was deemed temporary? Not uncommon for stuff like this to not get checked by QA.

Re:Been there, done that...

[dhardisty]

"I added a 'back' button - only to find the word I used was a person's back..."

Dos! - French Homer

Re:That "offensive" again....

[youknowmewell]

Yea, totally. I mean, what are humans anyway, besides bald monkeys? And what are bald monkeys? Just a bunch of skin, muscles and intestines wrapped around a skeleton full of blood and crap and other offensive smelling and tasting substances. And what are skin, muscles and intestines wrapped around a skeleton full of blood and crap and other offensive smelling and tasting substances? Just a bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons put together. Not only that, but those protons, neutrons and electrons have only two desires: consume and multiply. What a bunch of parasites!

So, lay off that stupid blame game and grow up you nasty sacks of blood and crap and start consuming and multiplying like you're suppose to!

Stability==delay

[mikelang]

It would be much better if there would be agreed stable version for each Wikipedia entry, that would be marked as consensus over last three months - most of the vandalities are only occasional, so that stable version would be free of disturbance.

Not only offensive, but also misleading

[Tirs]

By the way: the term is not only offensive to us Catalans: it is also confusing and misleading for everyonoe else, since the actual meaning of the word used is "Polish" (from Poland). Any person who does not know about all this might think that in the NorthEast part of the Iberian peninsula, Polish is actually spoken...

Amateur mistake.

[ScentCone]

By now, everyone knows that research on spelling, regional colloquialisms, and obscure information is best (and most accurately) satisfied by a visit to MySpace. After all, it's the busiest destination on the web now, and millions of people can't be wrong.

Re:Amateur mistake.

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

And Bush got voted in for a second term (with or without voting machine controversy). Millions of people can't be wrong.

Re:That "offensive" again....

[Some Guy]

Or, as a friend likes to say when some tells him they're offended by something:

"Why do you choose to be offended?"

danger of careless people

[fermion]

This is no different than reading something anywhere and then quoting it as fact. The only difference is that wikipedia is not static, and so the errors can change from minute to minute. Therefore this is not a problem with open content, but a problem with dynamic open content.

All of this can be easily solved by fact checking before the distribution of a static content.

I do understand the problem. I can be careless. But when I am I do not blame my carelessness on someone else.

Vandalism isn't just one day

[br00tus]

Remember that the Seigenthaler article was tehre for weeks and months. So forget the idea that it's just that people might come across the article on the minute or hour that it had a vandalized version.

For example, the FSLN article has an introduction, and then begins "The FSLN was formally organised in 1961 by recent KGB recruits Carlos Fonseca Amador, Tomás Borge Martínez and Silvio Mayorga." The rest of the article goes on in that sort of tone. I don't know how many people in the world think the main purpose of the FSLN was to establish a satellite of the USSR "two days driving time from Harlingen, Texas", but obviously that is what is considered in this article. Most educated, professional people (at least those outside the US anyhow) in the world would consider this article laughable, and certainly not encylopedic. Microsoft and Encarta, or Encyclopedia Britannica, are not exactly FSLN boosters, but their articles are not silly like this.

This is just one example of many. There is a response that "anyone can edit" and that anyone can just go in and fix it, but that is simply not true. Anyone who edits this article would be descended on by one or more people who believe that, to quote from the article "During the following three years the KGB handpicked several dozen Sandinistas for intelligence and sabotage operation in the United States. In 1966, this KGB-controlled Sandinista sabotage and intelligence group was sent to the U.S.-Mexican border" (you see, the FSLN had nothing to do with conditions in Nicaragua, since the world revolves around the U.S.). So one would waste time on a stalemate for weeks, and ultimately, the admins and ArbCom would back those people up. Once upon a time there were admins or experienced users who would have helped someone tackle this page, but they have been driven off. Jimbo Wales political sympathies have been stated in the past (he ran the Ayn Rand list for years, to give you a clue), and the one appointee to the ArbCom (who he appointed twice, since he couldn't get elected) seemed to be picked only because he edits with a Zionist point of view, he's editing the Lebanon pages currently. Editors with a different political point of view are driven off. The Wikipedia partisans say on Wikipedia there are only "trolls" and "good users" or whatever, but this is more their almost cult-like Manicheanism then reality. The "Criticism of Wikipedia" page forbids links to pages critical of Wikipedia like Wikipedia Review. If Wikipedia is so "open", why do Arbitration Committee members zealously defend the "Criticism of Wikipedia" page from links to a forum of people critical of Wikipedia? Like many others, I have given up on Wikipedia. Unlike most people who grew tired of Wikipedia's nonsense, I continue to edit on alternative wiki encyclopedias. I also post to Wikipedia Review as well.

Re:Vandalism isn't just one day

[julesh]

Remember that the Seigenthaler article was tehre for weeks and months. So forget the idea that it's just that people might come across the article on the minute or hour that it had a vandalized version.

Theory tells us that the length of time a vandalised article will remain depends on how many people are looking at it, in a roughly linear fashion. Therefore we can work on the basis that for each case of vandalism, approximately the same number of people will see it vandalised.

In this case, the article is quite popular, so it only took 4 minutes for the vandalism to be removed. As it will for any case of vandalism you care to link to on a topic that most of the people here have heard of.

Re:Vandalism isn't just one day

[julesh]

I don't know how many people in the world think the main purpose of the FSLN was to establish a satellite of the USSR "two days driving time from Harlingen, Texas", but obviously that is what is considered in this article.

Huh?

The only mention of Texas in the article is in this sentence (previous sentence quoted for context):

In 1966, this KGB-controlled Sandinista sabotage and intelligence group was sent to the U.S.-Mexican border. Their primary targets were southern NORAD facilities the oil pipeline running from El Paso, Texas to Costa Mesa, California.

While I won't say that this is a good sentence, or discuss its accuracy (I'd never heard of this group before now), it hardly implies that this is the primary reason for the group's existence. It just claims that this is something that they did.

you see, the FSLN had nothing to do with conditions in Nicaragua, since the world revolves around the U.S.

I see an article that's nearly 10,000 words in length. I see about 5,000 words that discusses relationships between the U.S. and the party. Much of the rest of it IS spent discussing conditions in Nicaragua. Most of the U.S. discussions sound highly relevant to me, for instance allegations of U.S. interference with national elections. Look, you may not like the fact that the U.S. has exerted a lot of influence over international politics. I'm not happy with it either, but the fact remains that they have. And it seems they did in this case, too.

I really don't see the problem with this article. It could do with some expansion concerning purely internal policies of this party; I'm assuming they did much more while in power than is described here. Other than that, it looks good to me.

Part of the issue is the name

[owlnation]

The name ending in -pedia has the inherent danger of legitimizing the content therein.

If wikipedia was to be renamed "Jimmy's Big Bumper Box of Trivia, Factoids, Lies, Rants, Memes and Cock and Bull Stories" (or something more serious, perhaps)it might give more of an accurate picture of the integrity of some of the data.

Out of curiosity does anyone have a figure for the number of wikipedia pages that have a panel questioning the veracity of the data, or neutrality of the same? It seems to be about one in every 2 or 3 that I visit. I don't know whether this is a quality of submission issue or a overzealotry of moderation issue, or (most likely) a bit of both.

I regularly use and do enjoy wikipedia as a source for trivial information, but I am concerned that people take it far too seriously as a source for important data. I guess most folks on /. have been to University and can be discerning over data, but most people in the World haven't been there and they might be more inclined to trust information that just looks correct.

People trust encyclopedias, if the name was changed this might be less of an issue.

Re:Part of the issue is the name

[E 99]

Out of curiosity does anyone have a figure for the number of wikipedia pages that have a panel questioning the veracity of the data, or neutrality of the same? It seems to be about one in every 2 or 3 that I visit. I don't know whether this is a quality of submission issue or a overzealotry of moderation issue, or (most likely) a bit of both.

Or maybe that's the proper state for any information coming from a human source. That's the problem with the Old Media that we're in process of the overcoming. That the Encyclopedia tells the world "I'm the Encyclopedia, and everything I say is from a neutral perspective and is completely true," or that CNN news tells the world, "I'm CNN News, and everything I say is from a neutral perspective and is completely true," and the scattered individuals who relize, "wait a minute, that is really biased," or "hey, that is patently untrue," say so in the privacy of their own homes, and no one else benefits from that realization.

I don't find Wikipedia entries to have any more neutrality problems than "real" encyclopedia entries, but when there is a problem, "real" encyclopedias have no good mechanism for finding it, alerting people to it, and fixing it.

Scoff at Seigenthaler?

[Wordsmith]

Why scoff at Seigenthaler? I met the man a few months ago, and we discussed his history with Wikipedia. He was very level-headed and reasonable about the whole thing. He acknowledged it's an interesting social experiment, but was very worried for what it can do to the reputations of good people if taken seriously as an information source.

It's worth noting that Seigenthaler DID eventually track down the malicious poster. Seigenthaler's an adamant free-speech advocate (and a head-honcho muckety-muck at the First Amendment Center), with an extreme distaste for libel and slander laws - he'd rather see lies and mischaracterizations flushed out through the marketplace of ideas. So he didn't sue, but he did go on TV and demand an apology from the malicious poster. That seems like a reasonable thing to me; the poster embarrassed Seigenthaler through his lies, and Seigenthaler embarrassed the poster through a demand for truth.

Seigenthaler also told me that when the poster's boss threatened to fire the poster, Seigenthaler called and asked the boss not to; he said the matter was settled was the truth was on the record.

He said the incident pushed and strained his belief in the marketplace of ideas, and that he was awfully tempted to go ahead with a libel suit. I'm glad ultimately he stayed true to his core values.

Re:Scoff at Seigenthaler?

[Maru Dubshinki]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr. _Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Anonymous_editor_ identified

Much as I loathe admitting this, 'twas Daniel Brandt, not Seigenthaler who tracked Brian Chase down.

And incidentally, Chase resigned before Seigenthaler called his boss. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-11-wikip edia-apology_x.htm

(If only /. posts were editable!)

Re:Scoff at Seigenthaler?

[Wordsmith]

Both points are true - my failable memory is to blame. But there's some irony in that you point to Wikipedia to illustrate one of them. :)

But the overall message is right - that Seigenthaler had a very reasonable concern, and addressed it reasonably. And unlike many who've been wronged, he didn't push for the heavy-handed solution of government regulation; on the contrary, he worried that similar abuses might eventually lead to it, and he saw that as detrimental to the idea of free speech.

It's naval slang

[Chemisor]

It's actually a derivative of "heave to"...

Authors and Authority

[Doc Ruby]

The problem is not "open content", Wikipedia, or vandals. The problem is people who rely on a single unaccountable source for any knowledge. That is a recipe for failure.

This has also been the problem with "authoritative" sources, like the Encyclopedia Britannica, NY Times or White House Spokesman. Those sources are highly managed, consciously or unconsciously, so they don't usually go as obviously haywire. Instead they mislead to usually workable misconceptions. In the service of the writer/speaker or the organization that produces/publishes them.

Now that the world is finally filling with lots of smalltime publishers, as publishing has become so cheap, easy and scaleable, we're all seeing the limits of sources. So we all must learn what the past publishers learn: power of the press belongs to people with presses, and power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only way to handle the corruption is to match power against power, cross-reference information from independent (of each other) sources.

Wikipedia will be even better when it includes an independent "fact checking" feature, like automated Google/Yahoo/MSN searching of citations. Until then, its superior power to managed press is just raw power that requires users to do that for ourselves.

Re:What's in a name?

[Zaphod2016]

It's only noon-ish, and already I've spotted quite a few lies today. One was in a blog article I just read. Another in the paper. Yet another on "Meet the Press" on the TV. All of these sources promise me credible information, yet none claim to be a "pedia".

One source makes a rumor, two sources make a theory. Fact, on the other hand, is more often than not a matter of perspective.

Re:That "offensive" again....

[rossifer]

those protons, neutrons and electrons have only two desires: consume and multiply.

Not to rain on your erudite discussion on the nature of humanity, but sub-atomic particles (in their hadronic nature) neither desire anything nor have the ability to "consume" or to "multiply".

The "bald monkey" level of your taxonomy is the lowest level at which a desire might be meaningfully expressed. As this very mild correction does not interfere with your conclusive statement, please continue with the already established discussion.

Your Pardon,
Ross

Quickie Mart

[Joebert]

Why aren't changes highlighted, or otherwise made glowing neon fucking {INSERT COLO[U]R HERE} for the first X days after the change is made ?

Re:Quickie Mart

[Joebert]

I'd like to see how many pages turn into bright neon distractions.

It would be neat to see if the place starts to look like an aquarium full of poisonous neon fish that nobody should touch.

apologize, repair, move on

[Simonetta]

Seriously, you got caught in some asshole's juvenile prank. Defacing a public resource (wikipedia) to reflect an immature joke at the expense of the next person to use that resource.

    So apologise, repair the mistake, and move on. Just because some jerk doesn't understand the usefullness of an open source public resource doesn't change the utility of that resource. And anyone who is 'offended' by the prank needs to understand this. This is like sueing the streetcar company for racism because some pissant spray-painted a racist remark on a streetcar. The correct response is to find the person responsible if possible, and if not, then to teach your own children why civilized people don't do such things.

Use more than one source

[Easy2RememberNick]

"... it gives us pause for thought when we to heavily on Wikipedia."

  If someone uses only one source for their information they deserve what they get!

  The fact the page was vandalized on one day doesn't mean Wikipedia is inferior either, it would have been corrected. One error doesn't mean the end of the World.

Re:Use more than one source

[DiamondGeezer]

One error doesn't mean the end of the World.

It will only take one last error.

Be more careful

[Neph]

An interesting tidbit: Not that I'm trying to place blame here, but if Mr. Ebb had been really careful, he would've noticed an inconsistency in the defaced Wikipedia page: The correct term, "Català", had been replaced with "Polaco" (whatever that means). However, if you look at the "in other languages" box at the left hand side, you'll notice that the cross-reference to the catalan Wikipedia site still points to the correct term, "Català".

From what I've seen, Wikipedia vandalism is almost always very blatant. And even in more subtle cases like this one, you can find evidence of the defacement even when you don't know much about the subject matter to begin with.

Unfortunately, when consulting Wikipedia you *have* to be alert and watch for this sort of thing. That doesn't make it any less of an invaluable resource however. Plus, as others have pointed out, it's generally a mistake to rely on any single source exclusively... although I'll admit that in the case of a quick lookup for a translation like this one, it's hard to sustain that kind of diligence.

Oh no! Don't rely on it!

[fuzzy12345]

When I use a dictionary, I use it as a source, not a starting point. Most peoples' use of encyclopaedias is as a reference, not a starting point. I agree that senior or college students writing theses or essays would be well advised to look further than one encyclopaedia entry, but for the vast majority of uses, most people want to go to one place and find the answer, AND THAT'S WHAT ENCYCLOPAEDIAS WERE DESIGNED FOR!

Alas, I see Wikipaedia as the strange case of the mediocre being the enemy of the good. It (and the 'net in general) is killing off the other mass-market compilations of information, and the quality will never be as good, for fundamentally structural reasons.

great design for *starting* an encyclopedia

[bcrowell]

This is a good example of a more general problem with WP, which is that the design was optimized for getting an encyclopedia off the ground initially, not for maintaining it in the long-term. It's analogous to an internet startup company that kludges up their software real quick using Visual Basic code, lots of gotos, and no comments; what they care about is getting it working initially, so they can make their IPO.

A lot of people don't realize that WP's design emerged after an initial period of uncertainty and experimentation over what model to use. There were alternative models, like Nupedia's, but they failed mainly because they were too cumbersome for new writers to get involved in.

My experience as a WP editor over the last few years has been that in the early stages, both the number and quality of the articles improved rapidly, but that within the last year or so, there have started to be severe quality problems. In the early stages, the problems came from not having enough users. For instance, the early versions of the article on astrology were ridiculously credulous, and when I tried to make it more balanced, I couldn't make any progress, because there were only roughly three of us working on the article, and the other two were true believers. I gave up on the article, but when I came back and looked at it again in a couple of years, the problem had been pretty well corrected, presumably because the continuing influx of new users made it impossible for a couple of fanatical true believers to continue using the article to push their POV.

But recently, there's the opposite problem. There are so many people editing WP that it's become virtually impossible to keep a good article good. It's an interesting exercise to look at an article that became a featured article, say, a year ago, and compare its quality then with its quality now. In most cases, you'll find that it's gotten worse because of lots of random, uncoordinated edits by people who may have a POV to push, or who may just not be very knowledgeable.

WP's design is an exteme design, going about as far as it's possible to go toward openness and ease of use. I don't think that design is working at this stage in WP's evolution, which is why I've mostly stopped editing on WP.

Re:That "offensive" again....

[EZLeeAmused]

Your question was, What is an "offensive" word/concept? But your subsequent argument focused solely on why a word isn't intrinsically offensive. What you failed to address is the fact that words are the manifestation of an idea or an action or something. "Nazi" and "nigger" are just words. But if someone were to call me either of those, I would take offense at the word. Not because my upbringing has trained me to have a Pavlovian response to the phonemes, but because the ideas being expressed by the speaker are counter to my ethical and/or moral framework.

Well, how about...

[Cinquero]

... factorizing the review process and the data creation process? Why do we always set up projects in a singular manner instead of using the internet's capabilities to the max? Let the data be provided by individuals. And sign their data snippets by some official WikiPedia key through the online WikiPedia site. That way, other (review) authorities could enter easily and the user could have the choice among them.

It's all about choice, isn't it? Well, with WikiPedia, it actually isn't. CHANGE THAT! Support secondary projects! Don't be so selfish.

Wikipedia is too open

[Skapare]

Wikipedia is too open. I think it would discourage the vandalism a bit more if it first required logging in as a registered username to make changes. And maybe in addition to that some kind of moderation system could apply to changes made to controversial articles. And a new idea to add would be "rebuttal articles", different than a talk/discussion article, parallels each controversial article where differing points of view can be placed with less limitations.

It's totally worthless.

[ChaosDiscord]

Between the trolls, complete loons, insane geological theories, loons engaging in revisionist history, bad biological science, and racists. Clearly because some parts of the internet are bad, the entire thing is totally worthless. But if you say this sort of thing, you get shouted down by people who've drunk Tim Berners-Lee's kool-aid. Clearly the logical course of action is to spend my time loudly complaining about how awful the Internet is, how anyone posting content to the web is wasting their time, and how only a web-cultist would claim that even though the web is flawed that there is any value to it.

Re:It's totally worthless.

[Kjella]

Clearly because some parts of the internet are bad, the entire thing is totally worthless.

That doesn't make any sense because the web has tons of articles on every subject, wikipedia has only one. Every time one of those fruitcakes change the article, they get to push their point of view in the spotlight. I wouldn't be happy if I tried to find info on human rights and got the KKK website presented as an authorative source on human rights either. Basicly whoever shuts loudest (edits most intensely) or has most connections to the editors wins. Wikipedia is bigger than anything else I know though - it's a great source of trivia. But for anything serious, I take everything there with more than a little grain of salt...

No different than any other encylopedia

[WindBourne]

The simple answer is, there is not perfect source. Wikipedia has probably more information than an other and probably growing faster than all the others combined. There are bound to be mistakes made. In addition, since it is open, it allows for all sorts of manipulation (watch the USA politician's stuff over the next 4 months; the shear amount of lies and purposeful deletions on both sides will be astounding). But overall, it is worth have some amount of garbage for access to useful info. But anybody who uses this as a single source is a fool. It should be combined with something like several search engines and even then do not trust it (try looking up the northern border of India or even Israel; It will depend on who is being asked).

Re:I love Europe but...

[Freultwah]

The Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians are basically the same nation that has been divided since the Middle Ages between the Muslim (the Ottomans), Protestant (the Habsburgs) and the Eastern Orthodox faiths. The feuds can all be tracked to differing views on how to make a cross or to which god's representative to pray. Add the people's ingrained temperament to the mix and you get a highly volatile situation.

But no, no millennia there, just a couple or so hundred years.

Professionalism

[Brandybuck]

Professionals use professional translation services. 'Nuff said.

growing pains

[macsox]

this is the fundamental problem with wikipedia -- and it's unfixable.

as it remained cultish and unknown, this was not a problem, both from the random vandalisation and trust of unfamiliar users standpoints. now, there are multiple issues as people think of it as the equivalent of britannica.

another is this -- it is very difficult, in certain circumstances, for objectivity to survive. i, for example, work in politics. information about a candidate for office in my city is erroneous and biased intentionally. however, i lack the clout within wikipedia to have my corrections upheld by editors -- the candidate's opponent's supporters are merciless about arguing and re-subjectifying the content. there's no recourse.

we've developed a new AOL (new users not understanding the internet and causing and experiencing challenges) -- from the standpoint that wikipedia has grown to the point that users don't know it's not perfect and can be harmful, and there are going to be a number of growing pains as a result.

Re:growing pains

[winwar]

"this is the fundamental problem with wikipedia -- and it's unfixable."

Actually, it seems to be a fundamental problem with people, that is probably unfixable. :)

People are lazy. They tend to believe the info they want to believe. Objective is often in the eye of the beholder. And what is "objective" anyway? Everyone is biased. At best you can know the bias.

Other Catalan resources

[belmolis]

Leaving aside the general issue of Wikipedia accuracy, Wikipedia isn't the best source of linguistic information, something for which there are specialized resources. In the case of Catalan, there is DACCO (Diccionari Anglès-Català de Codi Obert), an open source bilingual dictionary project. DACCO allows users to contribute, but via a more controlled process than just letting anybody edit. This approach, of starting with a few experts, having them admit others whom they recognize as responsible and having expertise, and allowing others to make suggestions but not actually edit, may well be the best way to combine openness with accuracy.

For those who know Catalan, the Gran Diccionari de la Llengua Catalana is available on-line.

Why not use your translators?

[Matt Perry]

So he had subject matter experts that were already helping him but he ignored them in favour of using Wikipedia? This sounds more like a breakdown in his process than a problem with Wikipedia. Why didn't he shoot out an email to all of the translators telling them what he was doing and asking for them to email him how the language is written in their own language? At the very least why didn't he email his self-researched list out to all of the translators for review before finalizing things?

Re:What's in a name?

[init100]

It's only noon-ish, and already I've spotted quite a few lies today. One was in a blog article I just read. Another in the paper. Yet another on "Meet the Press" on the TV.

Reminds me of an "in-depth article" about open source on the Swedish national television website, provided as "see also" information about the latest Microsoft fine in the EU. It listed a few companies whose products are open source, and to my surprise, Skype were among them.

I sent them an email, pointing out their error, and they removed it the next day.

I'm Catalan...

[Uukrul]

However, this is more about the troubles with doing international work
...and I like Elephants Dream a lot. I can understand what had happened, and I can't get angry with Matt Ebb because has been a mistake.
The problem isn't about international work, but about internal politics. It isn't the firs time that happens some thing like this, and it is going to happen again international or not.
The better option is to say the true, people is not so foolish not to understand. And it's fixed now.

The Cava Boycott is an example about internal Spanish problems.

The History of Catalonia is an interesting one (like any other history). And is a good example of how a XVIII century problem becomes an issue nowadays.

Too

[Paradise Pete]

but it gives us pause for thought when we to heavily on Wikipedia."

It also gives us pause for thought when we to heavily rely on spell checkers.

5334

[ElephanTS]

This is a little bit like the situation you get with kids and pocket calculators. Eg,

ME: What's 99 - 34?
Boy in Class: 5334?

What I mean to say is that with some knowledge of languages you should be able to guess that the word "Palaco" is never going to be Catalan for 'Catalan'. I mean it's obvious if you think about it isn't it. I would have least checked a second cource if I'd seen that.

Re:5334

[belmolis]

I'm not so sure that one can guess that "Palaco" is unlikely to be Catalan for "Catalan". The name that people call themselves is often different from what other people call them, so you can't assume that Catalans call themselves something like "Catalan". Note, for example, that Germans call themselves "deutsch". And it isn't always the case that the language's own name for itself is related to the name of the people. Depending on who you ask, the Chinese name for Chinese may be given as guo yu ("national language") or pu tong hua "standard language", neither of which contains the word "China".

here's an example:

[YesIAmAScript]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Revolutionary _Separatist_Party

In case that changes, here is a link to the version I looked at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalan_ Revolutionary_Separatist_Party&oldid=38356746

"1-You will recognise Catalonia as your ONLY homeland
2-You will never deny wherever you are, your condition of Catalan that aspires to free Catalonia; but all the opposite: you will be proud of being one and of knowing that you are.
3-Consider the Catalan language as beautiful and rich as any other, and you will not fall on the shame of communicating with other Catalans, verbally or in writing, in any other language that is not the Catalan."

I'm not Catalan or a Spaniard. But I'd be angry if I saw separatism such as this in my country too. People need to get along more and Balkanize less.

Your polemic that Spanish is not a language is absurd. The purpose of words is to convey ideas to others clearly. Wish to rename something simply because you disagree with the etymology of the word is both foolish and a scary parallel to Orwell's ruminations on language.

Bwa?

[bahwi]

Is Wikipedia the definitive source for advice concerning law, or should you seek a lawyer?

Is Wikipedia the definitive source for translations, or should you seek a translator?

Come on people, it's not rocket science! There's no excuse for this, and trying to blame wikipedia is ridiculous, because that's not where you should go, especially for something considered professional.

Re:Bwa?

[theshibboleth]

So Wikipedia is pointless then? I think that people can rely on Wikipedia, but they should be thorough in their research. They should make sure that they haven't been recent anonymouse, no summary edits recently. They should also make sure that there isn't any outstanding controversy on the discussion page. If using Wikipedia as a source rather than as a window to other source, they should check out the references and make sure they're credible. They might also consider only relying on "Good" or "Featured" articles. Yes Wikipedia has vulnerabilities, but so do other sources; I'm sure many encyclopedias have innacurrate information, it's just that you don't hear about it as much and they haven't been as sucessful.

Re: -- solution -- Reliability Scores

[Gnostic Ronin]

One thing I'd like to Wikipedia do is give a "reliability score" showing what degree of trust an article should have, based on edits and perhaps link-backs.

Both would be measured on the same scale, say a ten point scale. 10 being highly stable, and a second ten meaning that the article is linked to by other sites as a reference. I don't think most web pages would link to bad info, and a page that's edited daily or weekly is probably "good enough" for most non accademic non professional use. So if you see a mark at the top with both scores as 10, chances are that the article is fairly accurate.

I18N project?

[harmonica]

Is there some project collecting translations for typical words or phrases in programs? Combined with a decent API this could save a lot of work. Such a project would start with the usual suspects like the "Open..." in the File | Open menu item in Spanish and could include more obscure terms like "quantization coefficient" in Swahili if someone cares to translate that.

Whatever other words or phrases a particular project requires its authors will have to translate themselves.

Re: -- solution -- Reliability Scores

[Thuktun]

This wouldn't be very useful. If you did get it up to a 10, and the page was vandalized, how would you know to drop it to a low score? Would you always drop it to a low score on an edit? By what mechanism would you up the score quickly without allowing vandalism to appear as trusted?

It sounds like a better mechanism might be a trust network, where untrusted individuals need to gain trust before their changes are automatically posted. A number of non-automatic, editor-approved articles or updates could lead to trust, but any vandalism would provide an immediate, lasting hit to the trust when discovered.

Re: -- solution -- Reliability Scores

[Doc Ruby]

I'd like to see a "thermometer" on the page, showing how hotly it's been edited. Maybe a graph, linked to user-supplied events.

And moderation letting people with IDs assign trust scores (-/?/+), with metamoderation underwriting those scores' weighting. Meta/moderation requiring links to outside citations to count.

It depends on what editors think is "good enough"

[Wry Cooter]

It depends what editors think is 'good enough' for their audience.

I wouldn't trust ANY encyclopedia beyond perhaps its use as a rough outline for further research.

Generally, despite being open to vandalism, I would generally trust Wikipedia more than lets say U.S. Television Network news, cable or broadcast, which feed error to the masses everyday.

There are different levels of feedback and revision flavoring all sources, for a variety of logistic reasons. There are different styles of error, commission and omission, based on these logistics.

Re:What's in a name?

[Zaphod2016]

Perhaps the whole "free" thing confused them? I like Skype as much as anybody, but *I've* never seen the source. Have you? Has anyone? (The OSX ver is a tad buggy).

My wife is Polish, you insensitive clod!

[rdmiller3]

Apparently, the perjorative word which got used instead of the real word for Catalan actually signifies someone of Polish descent. Something like calling someone a "Polack" in some areas of the US used to be when I was a kid.

How hypocritical is it that people of Catalan culture would consider the name of another culture as "offensive"? Maybe the author who made the mistake should, instead of apologising, replace the word in question with the Catalan word for "BIGOT".

Re:My wife is Polish, you insensitive clod!

[opkool]

For the sake of proper attributions, I cannot let you to call Catalans "BIGOTS"

Catalans *might* call each other "you, Polack"!, in the same way African Americans would call each other "you, Nigger!".

Nevertheless, Is it OK to call Catalans "Polacks" or to call African Americans "Niggers"?

**No**.

If a non-African American calls an African American "Nigger", the caller is getting into trouble (or asking for trouble).

The same goes for Catalans. If a non-Catalan calls "Polack" to a Catalan, the caller is getting into trouble (or asking for trouble).

Yes, even as (some) Catalans like the word "Polack" for themselves (as Poland and Catalonia have suffered similar fate in history up to the 20th Century, when Poland become again a self-governing country and Catalonia stayed ruled by Franch and Spanish governments; there's even a book that 'sings' the similitudes between Poland and Catalonia ).

I (a Catalan) rise the "Polack" question to all "real" Polish (people with Polish passport) I met: this makes for a smile and an interesting conversation starter, followed by beer and friendship.

We (Catalan people) were not the ones who used the term "Polack" to refer to "people who speak like dogs, who speak a language that is so alien that we need to call them 'Polacks' " (as they did until not so long ago). The ones who used the term were (mainly) members of Franco's Army and followers. Franco was a dictatorm in the same league as Mussolini, Hitler and similar fascist scum. And, as back then under franco's rule, the Army was formed by mandatory conscription, we (Catalan people) were denigrated, called names and "properly instructed in the Customs and Language of 'The Empire'".

So, please rdmiller3, use the term "bigot" with whoever started using the term "Polack" as a pejorative/insult/curse word towards us, Catalan people,

Peace

Groklaw - Duh!

[Dareth]

Is Wikipedia the definitive source for advice concerning law, or should you seek a lawyer?

Groklaw! PJ is da bomb!