Slashdot Mirror
A Wikipedia WIthout Graffiti
Editor control over articles is controversial within the "radical collaboration" community; the Wikimedia foundation lists five "foundation issues that are essentially beyond debate", which includes "Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering". (In practice there are some safeguards in place to protect articles that are frequent targets of vandalism, like the George W. Bush entry.) But I'm fanatically results-oriented in my thinking, and I always ask: What are the purposes of this project, and how does this feature help achieve those purposes? It seems to me that a free online encyclopedia fills four main needs:
- A source of information about pop culture that can be fun to read even without being 100% sure that it's accurate (like who R.A.B. is)
- A source of information that can be freely and legally redistributed, e.g. by printing out copies for a class to read
- A source of information on subjects where you need to be close to 100% certain that the information is reliable -- at least as certain, say, as you would be if you read the same fact in several books
- A source of information that you can cite in a school paper as being reasonably authoritative and reliable
For the reliability problem, I can't improve on this priceless sentence from Wikipedia's own "Citing Wikipedia" page:
For many purposes, but particularly in academia, Wikipedia may not be considered an acceptable source. [ citation needed ]Wikipedia has actually done much better than I would have expected -- a study done in 2005 found that Wikipedia averaged about 4 errors per article compared to Britannica's 3, which is pretty good for a site where anybody can write that Columbus sailed to the New World in ships named the Ninja, the Pinto, and the Santa Fe. But for a site that harnesses the efforts of volunteers all over the world, I think the goal should be to surpass what has been done before, not just to tie with Britannica. And even if Wikipedia's error rate someday beats Britannica's, under its current model Wikipedia can never have the key property that Britannica has, which is that you can cite it as an authoritative source without sounding silly.
Citizendium's model of editor-approved articles, and editor approval of further edits to those articles, can help to achieve the benefits of collaboration, harnessing the efforts of volunteers, without falling into Wikipedia's traps. Assuming you can verify an editor's credentials (and we'll get to this in a minute), having an editor manage an article means two things: (a) you know the page wasn't vandalized in the last five minutes, and (b) you ought to be able to cite the work as a reference in a paper if your teacher isn't a total Luddite and you can explain to them how Citizendium works. Meanwhile, volunteers can still contribute without their own credentials being checked out; they can write as much as they want for an editor-approved article, as long as it's approved by the editor before going live.
There are still loopholes, of course. Currently Citizendium asks people to edit under their real name, but says that "we will use the honor principle to begin with", so anyone could claim to be a professor or a lunar astronaut. But the key words are "to begin with"; the difference between Wikipedia and Citizendium is that Citizendium views this as a loophole and not an intrinsic "community value", and loopholes can be fixed. To make the reliability as airtight as possible, I hope that Citizendium will eventually implement some sort of verification system, such as checking a professor's contact information on a Web page in the "faculty" section of an .edu Web server. I'm not instinctively thrilled by the thought of checking out volunteers' contact information, but it seems like the only way to achieve goals #3 and #4 above, so if it's as simple as sending a verification e-mail to an .edu address, that's a lot of gain for little effort. (Remember, this only has to be done for editors who sign off on articles, not for all volunteers. A non-editor volunteer could still ask to have their credentials checked out, so that they can be cited by their real name in the "end credits" of an article that lists volunteer contributors. But impersonation among regular volunteers is not likely to be a problem, since the editorial approval process ensures that only value-adding edits will be allowed, and it's unlikely that Alice would pretend to be Bob so that Bob can take all the glory of Alice's contributions to the project!)
Besides verifying authors' credentials, the one change that I hope Citizendium considers in the future is to give authors and editors credit at the top of each article -- or, for articles with many contributors, perhaps editors would be listed at the top and the "end credits" would list all contributors, on a separate page if necessary. This is because credited authorship for an article can help improve the article's usefulness in two ways -- the article can be cited as a reliable source, and the "name up in lights" factor rewards people for contributing more and better articles. Having authors listed only on the history page of an article, as they are in the current model, achieves the credibility benefit but not the "name up in lights" benefit. Larry Sanger suggested that having authors listed at the top of each article might put off readers from submitting edits -- if an article is perceived as being "owned", then others might feel like it's rude for them to change it. For me personally, this could go either way -- on the one hand, I might not realize that I was welcome to edit an article, but on the other hand, I think I might be more inclined to submit edits if I knew there was an editor in charge to keep someone else from frivolously overwriting my edits later. But in any case, to address this problem, each article could carry a banner at the top saying "Readers are encouraged to submit edits and other suggestions", and each paragraph could be accompanied by an "Edit" link, similar to Wikipedia (except that edits would go into a queue to be reviewed by the editor instead of going live). This would address the ownership-intimidation problem without taking away from the "name up in lights" factor. Sanger says that the Digital Universe Encyclopedia -- comprising the Encyclopedia of Earth and an Encyclopedia of the Cosmos, under development -- has plans to join with Citizendium and will use the credited-author model on their version of the site.
You might say that editors having their "name up in lights" would be an ego thing for editors, and I think you'd be right -- but I don't think this would be a bad thing, inasmuch as ego would motivate more people to become editors and do their best work. Perhaps I'd be wrong about this. Maybe a limited experiment could be carried out with two sites that are similar in every respect except that one allows editors and authors to take credit for their work, as might turn out to be the case with Citizendium and Encyclopedia of Earth. The point is that I don't think such a suggestion should be judged by whether it goes against the "spirit" of the project (as it certainly does in the case of Wikipedia!), but rather whether it helps to achieve the projects goals, such as goals #1 through #4 listed above.
There are still some problems that Citizendium's differences from Wikipedia won't solve. Many schools discourage citing Wikipedia not because it's written anonymously or because it contains errors, but because it's an encyclopedia. Yale's guidelines for citing Wikipedia state:
As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is written for a common readership. But students in Yale courses are already consulting primary materials and learning from experts in the discipline. In this context, to rely on Wikipedia -- even when the material is accurate -- is to position your work as inexpert and immature.Presumably many academics would have the same objections to a student citing Citizendium. I understand what these teachers mean, but I think this is a case of not thinking in terms of results. If the purpose of an assignment is to collect and present information, then any means of accomplishing that goal should be valid, including the easiest method of looking up the information in an encyclopedia. To make a student look beyond the encyclopedia, an assignment can simply require depth of research that goes beyond what the encyclopedia would provide. (Students, if you're worried that your teacher will take this to heart and make your assignments harder, just be happy that your teacher is hip enough to be reading this in the first place.) Some things are hard, but they should only be hard if they're intrinsically hard, not because you handicapped yourself with arbitrary rules.
But there is another, more permanent problem -- even with verification of authors' credentials, how do we know that the information in Citizendium articles is accurate? How do we know the author didn't make a mistake, or lie? This gets into deeper issues because these problems exist no matter what source you're consulting. There are books in print that deny the Holocaust or the possibility of evolution, and they're printed on real paper, with ISBN numbers and everything. Some of them even make it into libraries. How skeptical should we be of we read in books? In January two advocacy groups presented a report to Congress in which many government scientists said they felt pressured by the Bush administration to downplay the global warming threat in their statements. Does that mean statements from government scientists are inherently suspect?
And almost anyone who has had more than two articles written about them, knows the feeling of reading the article and reacting, "Wow, I had no idea that I was a transgendered NRA member who volunteers with the Moonies!" The New York Times is hosting an article about me from 2000 claiming that I was fired from Microsoft, when I actually quit. I showed them a copy of my personnel file with "Voluntary resignation" printed on it, but they have still refused to change the article. (When I first wrote to the paper's "Public Editor" about the matter, created to restore "reader credibility" after the Jayson Blair scandal, they replied that they wouldn't change the error because it never appeared in the print version of the paper. Huh?) I put up my own webpage to tell my side of the story, but if you were a Wikipedia or Citizendium editor and you had conflicting information from different sources, who would you believe, the New York Times, or a Web site called PublicEditorMyAss.com?
And yet, I freely admit that even today, I would trust a fact from the New York Times more than a fact from Bob's Bait And Tackle Shop And Technology Blog. We instinctively trust sources because of their reputation; we figure that they must have gotten their reputation somehow. This is not a great algorithm for deciding trustworthiness, but it may be the best that we can do -- in a world where we can't verify every fact firsthand, what choice do we have but to rely on sources that have provided mostly-reliable information in the past? (Wikipedia vandals are able to hack this mental algorithm because we think of Wikipedia as "one source" with a high average reliability, when it's really comprised of many sources, some of whom are deliberately less reliable than others.)
So, I think the Citizendium model is a move in the right direction -- taking into account the limits of what we can know from third-party sources, and doing the best we can within those limits. The least we can do is to know who has signed off on the accuracy of an article, so we can factor that into our decision to trust it. Last month Citizendium released their first editor-approved article, a single article about Biology. It may not look like anything revolutionary right now, but the difference between that and the Wikipedia entry is that you can't change the title of the Citizendium article to LARRY SANGER IS A BUTT BRAIN HA HA. You have to go through an editor for that.
The immediate publication of changes is a big motivator, not just for spammers and pranksters. It adds a reward to the work that people are doing. Remove that and you lose many contributors, and without an abundance of contributors you lose the second motivation as well: Completeness. Nobody wants to work on something that continues to lack in breadth. In turn that means you need to provide other motivations, which usually means paying people for their work.
Unfortunately, in the real world they do.
But that's a nit- it's a fundamental problem of ANY reference (be it the news, university research, or even good old Britannica).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The rules regarding non-citation of material gathered from an encyclopedia isn't arbitrary. It's because encyclopedias are not authoritative, in that they do not research information but merely collate it. As such, they are not sources of information in and of themselves. Hence, you cannot reasonably question the logic of what is said there, just question the source of it. It is vital in any reasonable paper to be able to question and argue with the findings.
All that needs to be done is have a "second face" to wikipedia, where the article visible to the general population is the "last good version" okayed by an administrator or long-time user. This is being done on one of the foreign wikipedias already (wasn't there a /. article about it?)
Besides, who wants to reproduce all the wikipedia knowledge into a new database? Let's just improve the one we have already. (Yes, the new database can just copy wikipedia's content, but they then have to credit wikipedia indefinitely.)
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Alas, as you say, this is not a perfect world, and allowing user links could lead to large scale addition of articles for the purpose of directing users to for-profit-sites. If that sounds a bit tin-foil brigade, I should add that there is a poster on slashdot who submits articles for that purpose alone. :D
I get where you're coming from though. and I clicked your link
Wikipedia made a huge mistake. It figured that everyone can contribute *and* edit, and that editors were also contributors. Nope, contributors are mostly good contributors, that Wikipedia got right. Editors, however, either want to present information, ot just their own POV.
Letting contributors be editors is asking for poor presentation. Asking editors to be contributors is begging to be hurt. The "but more people will fix it" response may be true, but that's is a kludge, not an answer to the problem.
Therefore, there needs to be a separation between contributing to a page and editting it. Allowing people to edit the main page is silly. Allowing them to edit a candidate is an excellent idea. As a candidate begins to differ from the main page (or possibly a certain amount of time has passed), there can be a process ot make it the main page. This process, whether by hand, by vote, or who knows what, should have different rules than fully open contributions.
The only real drawback is who gets to decide what goes live is not a more limited pool and be even more easily usurped by a group that decides they want to "own" a page, or bias of the responsible editor. It'll be interesting to see how it works out, and then how the finished product differs from Wikipedia.
Have you read my journal today?
I just wanted to read a few articles. I can't. Sorry, but that means I have to give you an e-mail address. Major flaw, sorry, game over.
I can't even be bothered to read into the docs to find out whether they're going to try and make money on this somehow. Well written Slashvertisement, but Wikipedia is obviously a very good source or not so many would use it. Semi-anonymous editors seem to be hammering out the graffiti pretty well regardless.
My little site.
Consider the story of the Phantom console. Slashdot collectively said "Interesting, but let's see some proof". The more flowery or adrenaline pumped the prose, the more skeptical we should be when there's nothing we can actually get our hands on. This article about the greatness of Citizendium falls into the same trap, and our response here should be to hold off on our praise until there's something that can be evaluated.
One other thing is the issue of graffiti. It's given quite a bit of exposure, heck, it's even in the title of the article itself. But realistically speaking, how big of a problem is it? Wikipedia has a pretty darn good response time when it comes to defacement/graffiti. There are vandalbots that autorevert some changes that meet certain heuristics, there are groups of people who skim through the latest changes, there are IRC channels that make it easy for people to see a feed of what's happening... I'd like to suggest that vandalism isn't really a _problem_ in the sense that it hurts the project, because even though there's lots of vandalism, it's nipped in the bud so quickly that 99.9% of the end users who are just _using_ the project don't see it. I think there are people who perceive vandalism as a bigger issue that it is because they either take the knowledge that vandalism is possible and logically extrapolate that it must therefor be widespread, and the other group are the folks who specifically fight vandalism, and because of that, it's the only thing they see on the project.
Citizendium is a neat idea, but I hope that as a community we'll let it succeed or fail on its own merits and not because we want to "teach wikipedia a lesson" or because the PR behind that project is controlling our feelings.
The problem this site and other self-congratulatory sites like Digital Universe face in replacing Wikipedia is dislodging a recognized central repository on the Internet. The Internet is really good at decentralizing control and information, but if you manage to do the reverse, then its very difficult to change that. Many have created better auction software than eBay, but they're not likely to replace eBay because it has the largest audience for sellers. Wikipedia has plenty of critics, but none of them have succeeded in replacing it. Nobody looking for information is going to replace Wikipedia because there is more authoritative editors or tighter control at another site. They're going to go where the information is. Vandalism is not enough of a reason. As Stephen Colbert proved, Wikipedia has this under control because again, they have the largest audience controlling it.
That said, Mr. Haselton's article smells an awful lot like astroturfing.
Part of the fun just might be contributing to the continued usefulness of an information resource that millions of people use. Maybe not 'fun' in the sense you're thinking of, but certainly a much more responsible type of fun than, eg, vandalism.
My little site.
However, all the Wikipedia text and many of the images are available under GNU Free Documentation License. If someone thinks they have a better way of operating, they can grab a copy of the current Wikipedia and go fork it.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Wikipedia is great. But it has so much community momentum that it can't change in certain ways (people have tried!).
To implement the changes that Citizendium implements, you've gotta start a new project.
Given the nature in which you contribute to the problem, it's not surprising the wikipedia article on "successful marriage" has apparently been edited to be purposefully incorrect.
:)
The correct article clearly, in large friendly letters, states the following: "In order for your marraige to be successful, your wife is ALWAYS RIGHT". That the current article doesn't seem to include this sugggests that someone, perhaps someone like yourself, has intentionally defaced the article to try and make a point.
Irrespective of what the wikipedia article says, your wife is ALWAYS RIGHT. Even when shes wrong, you shut up and route around the defect
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Actually serious academic community bans the use of ANY encyclopedia. Sure you are encouraged to use them in your research, but you should note cite them for accuracy. Though I do take issue with some professors who don't want me to cite it at all, when I'm only citing them to indicate where I got an idea.. ie I don't like to plagurise.
Which is funnier... your post or the fact is was modded informative?
I think the mod. That's hilarious.
Developers: We can use your help.
"Wikipedia is the best source of what the masses believe is true at any given time."
Paraphrase. I don't know who said it first, and perhaps a little better than I remember it. But the point is that Wikipedia has an IQ of 100. To claim that blatant mistakes in Wikipedia will eventually be corrected is, I think, statistically unlikely.
Where Wikipdia is especially good is in straight factual information with no need for "interpretation." For example, where is Barcelona, Spain? It gives you latitude and longitude; you can check it with Google Earth and correct if necessary. Sometimes Wikipedia will give a coordinate in the middle of the ocean, It's not always accurate, but it is easily verifiable. It's also good where it has 'incorporated' text from other sources. For example, much of the historical information on Roman civilization is from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, still considered one of the best efforts ever produced. It is in the public domain. Wikipedia copied it. An interesting point when 'studies' show Wikipedia's error rate better or worse than Britannica.
Where Wikipedia is especially poor and unreliable is in political issues and debates. Tenacity and anger count far more than accuracy. Extremists tend to win these battles because they are so adamant and, for them, so much is at stake for them to ensure Wikipedia "gets it right." Antagonists accuse their opposite of "changing history," because, of course, God's on their side. Anyone who uses Wikipedia to learn accurate information on political issues is, as Cowboy Neal says of using Slashdot polls, insane.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
There's one thing I hope is addressed by the editor system: bias. Let's say that, on an article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the editor ends up being a former Israeli general. Qualified? Certainly. Highly biased in favor of Israel? Undoubtedly. Can anyone take a guess as to whether bias will be very apparent in the resultant article?
I'm not sure what the solution to this is. But I worry about this sort of thing in an "editor" system. Perhaps on articles that aren't deemed "controversial", you can have a single editor, but on articles that are deemed controversial (as judged by moderators who haven't been involved in the article), you need multiple editors, and only content that they can reach consensus on can be published. Do you think this would work?
Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
When it comes to bias, Wikipedia is just as gullible as very other published work in the world. If you have an author write a book, then it is very unlikely that that book will not be colored by the authors bias. If you have ten authors to a book, you get their ten biases. If you have a million authors, well, you get the mean of their million biases in the book.
That one million authors that Wikipedia has, is not a randomly distributed sampling of humankind. Most people do not have access to computers and those that do, do not speak English. Instead, Wikipedias authors come from mostly American middle-class youths with enough time on their hands to contribute to Wikipedia. There is nothing inherently bad with that, but it means that the bias is shifted towards an American point of view. Americans, naturally, have an American point of view. If you research the articles about the Iraq war, you will find that their bias have changed alot since 2003. Just like the American view of the war has changed alot since then. Or if you know some foreign languages, you can consult articles about the Iraq war in a non-English language. Not suprisingly, there will be some stunning differences on how what information is provided.
The standard response from Wikipediaists is that Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view" rule, meaning that articles should only contain facts and that all "views" should come from attributed sources. But such a rule totally misunderstands what bias is all about. Bias is all about EXCLUDING information that harms your bias and INCLUDING information that favors it.
So, Wikipedia is not what "Humanity Has to Say," it (the English version) is what Wikipedia contributors have to say. You are able to read a lot of great and factual things about maths, physics, medicine and other hard sciences. So please do not accept Wikipedia as an unbiased source for any topic that may be biased, it is not.
Football Odds
I really hope you are modded up for that comment. You are so absolutely right, but there is a fairly simple solution (that you yourself suggested).
There are enough experts in the world on any topic for there to be a large plurality of editors for any given article. I say that there doesn't even need to be a dichotomy between "controversial" and "non-controversial"; just attach a plurality of editors to *every* article. If they are all given approval rights, the consensus element of Wikipedia still remains intact in The Citizendium, but now at two levels (the user and editor level). The set of editors for a topic will have to find a way to agree, or a higher power (perhaps Sanger himself in some cases) will have to step in to resolve the disagreement. I suspect that a large group of experts will eventually be able to stabilize almost any article's content with sufficiently neutral language. Heck, it happens on Wikipedia all the time; the only difference is that once this stabilization takes place on the Citizendium, it will have the tacit approval of [hopefully] well-regarded experts in the relevant field.
Your solution really only moves the problem a level. Someone could be found who will disagree with anything, so the onus is on the person who decides whether something is controversial or not. In some cases controversy is clear and should be treated from a balanced point of view (your Israel-Palestine example). In other cases the controversy is obvious, should be mentioned, but is not worthy of a dissenting editor, for example evolution, and then there are even more convoluted cases like global warming. Whomever decides who and how many editors a global warming article has, gets to choose the slant.