Wikipedia's New Definition of Truth

Hugh Pickens writes "Simson Garfinkel has an interesting essay on MIT Technology Review in which he examines the way that Wikipedia has redefined the commonly accepted use of the word 'truth.' While many academic experts have argued that Wikipedia's articles can't be trusted because they are written and edited by volunteers who have never been vetted, studies have found that the articles are remarkably accurate. 'But wikitruth isn't based on principles such as consistency or observability. It's not even based on common sense or firsthand experience,' says Garfinkel. What makes a fact or statement fit for inclusion is verifiability — that it appeared in some other publication, but there is a problem with appealing to the authority of other people's written words: many publications don't do any fact checking at all, and many of those that do simply call up the subject of the article and ask if the writer got the facts wrong or right. Wikipedia's policy of 'No Original Research' also leads to situations like Jaron Lanier's frustrated attempts to correct his own Wikipedia entry based on firsthand knowledge of his own career. So what is Wikipedia's truth? 'Since Wikipedia is the most widely read online reference on the planet, it's the standard of truth that most people are implicitly using when they type a search term into Google or Yahoo. On Wikipedia, truth is received truth: the consensus view of a subject.'"

Comments

Food for Thought

[AKAImBatman]

[B]ut there is a problem with appealing to the authority of other people's written words: many publications don't do any fact checking at all, and many of those that do simply call up the subject of the article and ask if the writer got the facts wrong or right.

Which raises an interesting question that no one seems to be asking: What if the problem is not Wikipedia at all? What if Wikipedia is a symptom of a much larger problem in our culture? What if the solution isn't to berate Wikipedia for that which they cannot fix, but rather to ensure the foundations upon which the system is based are fixed?

Failures in authority are of far greater reach than just Wikipedia. That's why academia seeks to correct itself on a regular basis. But the rigid standards of academia (standards which have weakened over time) are not applied to all fields that Wikipedia reports on. Using the case of Jaron Lanier, how is an impartial observer supposed to distinguish between a failure in authoritative reporting vs. an attempt to rewrite history for personal benefit? The only way to prove one over the other is to find evidence. In the case of Wikipedia, it must find another authortative party to dispute the original because doing detective work is beyond what is reasonable for an encyclopedia.

Re:Food for Thought

[internerdj]

That is if you are an empiricist there is no other way to provide proof other than evidence. I never took a philosophy class so I'm not sure of the term but I think there are far more people who subscribe to proof through consensus which would be wikipedia's methodology. An abundance of rigor tends to make alot of people shut down or at least slow mental processing down to where they are non-functional(admittedly probably by choice). I don't know that converting everyone to empiricism is actually a rational goal.

Re:Food for Thought

[AKAImBatman]

To add to my point, the Nintendo DSi announcement is a perfect example. Take a gander at the Slashdot story:

http://games.slashdot.org/games/08/10/02/2116202.shtml

"Nintendo finally came out with a solution to the Wii's lack of storage capacity -- a 2GB SD card from which users can execute games"

Sounds pretty cool, eh? Expect that it's wrong. Nintendo announced a solution to DOWNLOAD games to the SD Card. At no point did they confirm an executable solution. (In fact, they seemed intent on steering away from such an announcement.)

But Slashdot's reporting was not the worst. The worst was GameSpot, a site that SHOULD by all rights be authoritative. Yet here they are putting words into Reggie's mouth:

9:23] "Iwata is addressing the problem of Wii storage," he says. "Soon you will be able to download and store virtual console and WiiWare titles directly on your SD card, and play them off your SD card. This will make the Wii download experience much easier."

I emailed a more reputable editor who was at the event and confirmed for a fact that those words were never spoken. Yet many, many people quoted GameSpot's poor journalism as proof positive that Nintendo announced a solution to execute games off of SD Cards.

What is a site like Wikipedia supposed to do?

Thankfully, this is a case where a mountain of solid reporting existed to counteract the poor reporting. So Wikipedia reports the correct information. But what if this was more obscure information? How would Wikipedia know who to trust? How would they be able to check again bad reporting?

Answer: They can't. Reporters must be help accountable for the factual nature of their statements. (In the case of GameSpot, that means they should have issued a retraction.) If they cannot maintain a reasonable level of journalistic standards, the industry as a whole should start advertising them as an unreliable source.

Re:Food for Thought

[blahplusplus]

The problem goes deeper then that, the author comes across to me as missing the deep links between religion, gossip, and ideology -- that they trump the facts every time.

That religious or slopping thinking is the standard for all human beings, even science is subject to the same sloppy thinking they accuse creationists and other "nonscience" disciplines, peoples and opinions of and hence the dire need for peer review, criticism, and understanding, etc.

But the truth is, all truths people think are true are riddled with errors and misconceived ideas based on flawed understandings that pass as "true" during the historical period and culture in which the people exist. Cognitive science has shown that sciences understanding of truth and objectivity is deeply flawed also, science has shown the enlightenment's ideas about science and reasoning are deeply flawed also.

Most people and scientists don't even have a clue what has been discovered in the neurological sciences over the last 30 years and how it undermines the enlightenment's view of reason and enlightenment's view of education. Most people still operate under the enlightenment's view of reason

(quick version)
http://i35.tinypic.com/10fruxh.jpg [tinypic.com]

Longer version:
http://www.linktv.org/video/2142 [linktv.org]

Today, with authoritarian governments in power around much of the world, increasing authoritarian tendencies in democratic governments, and increasing amounts of power vested in unaccountable corporations, the need for openness and transparency is greater than ever, and despite wikipedia's flaws, the fact that the internet exists and "anti wikipedia" sites exist, allow us to balance it's shortcomings through open criticism.

But you have to realize that this is a fundamental human problem for every human being, regardless of status, class, intellect, or education, many of histories brightest minds were horribly wrong in enormous ways about other things. Look at Newton for instance and the amount he wrote concerning religion, etc.

(site for those interested)
http://www.isaac-newton.org/

Socrates showed a long time ago that all knowledge and claims to morals and truth is political. The truth is political, hence the phrase:

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. --George Orwell

Re:Food for Thought

[bcrowell]

Which raises an interesting question that no one seems to be asking: What if the problem is not Wikipedia at all? What if Wikipedia is a symptom of a much larger problem in our culture?

In fact, I think Wikipedia has some features that make it more reliable than the culture at large.

When I read a WP article on a controversial topic, I always make sure to take a look at the talk page as well. This allows me to see what issues are really controversial, what ideological axes people have to grind, etc. That's something I can't do with the New York Times.

Re:Food for Thought

[dnwq]

A highly relevant note from WP:UNDUEWEIGHT:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

...From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

So, despite TFA, verifiability is not the only criterion. I daresay NPOV comes into play more often: WP policy is only ever important when an issue is fought over by differing editors, after all; and it is trivial to find sources for all sorts of contradictory viewpoints.

Note that even the UNDUEWEIGHT policy is not strictly followed in Wikipedia - e.g., creationism has a lot of adherents at a popular level. It's also trivial to find cited sources and endless lines of arguments and counter-arguments. Despite this, Wikipedia is usually sceptical of creationism - statements on evolution are usually phrased "it is the case that x" whereas creationist statements are carefully bracketed as "many people believe that x".

...but who seriously thinks that this is a bad thing? WP:IAR is probably the best guideline here. Common sense, indeed...

Re:Food for Thought

[Tom]

Which raises an interesting question that no one seems to be asking: What if the problem is not Wikipedia at all? What if Wikipedia is a symptom of a much larger problem in our culture? What if the solution isn't to berate Wikipedia for that which they cannot fix, but rather to ensure the foundations upon which the system is based are fixed?

WP might not be "the" problem, but a part of the problem, I agree on that.

However, the aggregation and the claims that WP makes about itself contribute to the problem. Most people with some critical thinking don't trust everything they read on the Internet, and have a clue about how reliable certain publications usually are. Most of us know which newspapers have good reporting and which ones don't.

WP merges everything. That means loss of differentiation. Someone decides which version is "true", maybe because he doesn't know the others.

More simply put: If you read it in a magazine, you're more likely to check at least one other source. If you read it in an encyclopedia, you aren't. For the most part, the encyclopedia is the most authoritative source a normal human will check.

Re:Food for Thought

[tzhuge]

Argumentum ad populum ... yes that's a wikipedia link; did I just blow your mind a little?

Re:Food for Thought

[cowscows]

Your specific example effectively demonstra a serious limitation for Wikipedia. One of wikipedia's flaws is not that it has such limitations, but that it doesn't recognize them. Wikipedia is not well suited for the task of distilling rumors and such to predict the future. That doesn't mean that wikipedia is worthless or somehow broken, it just means that it shouldn't have entries that try and guess.

Like you said, when operating at its fullest potential, Wikipedia is really an aggregation of well supported facts. I think everyone would be better served if Wikipedia as a general philosophy would remove topics where those sorts of facts can't be found. Keeping them around only serves to draw into question the usefulness of the entire site.

I think the more useful solution is multiple wiki's, each geared towards a more specific category of knowledge, and having the appropriate level of requirements for an entry to be considered valid. A wiki about future trends of the video game industry is not a bad thing, but it has, inherent in its subject matter, a huge amount of uncertainty. The very idea that such information would be compiled in the same collection and through the same process as something as straight-forward as descriptions of historical medieval weaponry is sort of silly. (Of course, it's also half the fun of wikipedia, following the strange paths that you can end up taking by clicking interesting links between entries.)

More subject specific wiki's do exist, and more are popping up every day, but they're all currently stuck in the shadow of Wikipedia. Hopefully as people become more savvy about finding information online, they'll start to look for more focused sources.

Re:Food for Thought

[truthsearch]

I think the more useful solution is multiple wiki's, each geared towards a more specific category of knowledge, and having the appropriate level of requirements for an entry to be considered valid.

That was exactly my thinking when I launched DocForge. Topics for programmers need to have a lot more information than a source like wikipedia can provide. We use some wikipedia articles as a starting point and expand from there. Sometimes opinions, especially pro / con arguments, are preferred for some articles because they provide much more insight than a flat reference. Plus we can collect subjective things like tips that don't belong on wikipedia.

I think this route of categorical wikis is very useful. But unfortunately, you're correct in that most will remain in the shadow of wikipedia for quite some time.

Re:Food for Thought

[Z00L00K]

For anyone familiar with B5 there is a quote:

"Truth is a triple-edged sword; My truth, your truth and the real truth".

So decisively saying that there is only one truth - you may be utterly wrong. Better to be careful with what you say and make people think instead and maybe someone will look up the real truth.

Re:Food for Thought

[Obfuscant]

There is a more relevant quote that had read-world consequences. "Forty million Frenchmen can't be wrong."

That quote refers to something called the Maginot Line; a line of heavily fortified positions on the French border prior to WWII. The "consensus truth" (a term I doubt they had heard of back then, it is so politically correct sounding) was that the Germans could NEVER break through such a heavily defended line.

That was the French "truth". The German "truth" was that they walked past the Maginot Line (because it was fixed and could not adapt to changes in attack plans) and into Paris.

"Consensus truth" is a waste of time and an insult to intelligent people. The summary shows why. If someone who was actually there because it was his life cannot get correct information into Wikipedia, that doesn't mean his life was different than he thought. It means that the Wikipedia "consensus truth" is balderdash. In other words, forty million Frenchmen CAN be wrong.

Re:Food for Thought

[David Gerard]

That's precisely the origin of the Wikipedia phrase "truth, not verifiability" - apparently nonsensical, but "truth" is unattainable, whereas "verifiability" is humanly manageable.

Re:Food for Thought

[fractalrock]

Argumentum ad populum ... yes that's a wikipedia link; did I just blow your mind a little?

I'm not sure. Can I ask around?

Re:Food for Thought

[Chris Burke]

The "consensus truth" (a term I doubt they had heard of back then, it is so politically correct sounding) was that the Germans could NEVER break through such a heavily defended line.

That was the French "truth". The German "truth" was that they walked past the Maginot Line (because it was fixed and could not adapt to changes in attack plans) and into Paris.

Well, and the French were right! The Germans didn't break through the line until after they had already cut off supply lines from the rear*. In fact the whole reason the Germans decided to go around the Maginot Line was that they, too, believed that they couldn't break through directly. So the problem wasn't that the "consensus truth" wasn't true. It was, more or less. No, the problem was deeper and more insidious. It was that they failed to fully realize what that truth was telling them, and what it wasn't. "The Maginot Line is impregnable", taken as truth, should immediately raise the question "Well what about the rest of the French border?" But they didn't want to think about that truth, so suddenly France was safe against any German invasion, a decided non-truth.

It's kinda like if you visit some witches who tell you that "None of woman born shall harm you", you shouldn't go "Woo-hoo, I'm invincible!", because that's not what the witches just said. You should instead go "Wait a minute, what was that bit about 'of woman born'? Were you just saying that to be poetic? I mean I know this is Shakespeare, but that just seems like a weird thing to say. Would, say, a C-section count as not being 'of woman born'? Cus I know a guy who was born that way and he'd be one of the first in line to try to harm me."

So anyway, I agree, I just think there's a lesson here too about being careful about what truth is actually telling you.

* This may not be 100% accurate. I know there were early battles where the Germans did attack the line, and that it by and large did its job as advertised and held them off, though Germany may have broken through at some spots. Maybe I should look it up on Wikipedia?

Re:Food for Thought

[Obfuscant]

And what should you have had about the Maginot line in the encyclopedias of the time ? The consensus truth was the only thing to have.

That is untrue.

"Consensus truth" is nothing more than a politically correct way of saying "opinion" that dresses opinion up in a fancy dress and makes it look like more than it really is. It's a way of making EVERYONE correct, while not having to point out that some people's "truth" just doesn't fit with the facts. It's good for their "self esteem" and politically correct not to think that some truths really are absolute.

The encyclopedia of the time could easily give just the facts about the line, which is what truth ultimately is based on. Real truth, not "consensus truth" which can ignore facts in favor of rumor and innuendo. "The Maginot Line consists of X number of fortified positions spread across a line from Y to Z, intended to defend the country against German attack". Those are facts. "The Maginot Line is an invincible fortified defense system ..." is an opinion, or what would be called "consensus truth" today.

Some of these might be true, but the thing is, the wikipedia has no way of being smarter than the consensus.

Yes, it does. The same way anyone has of being smarter than the consensus. Look for facts and not opinions. The fact that they don't allow one of their victims to correct his own biography is demonstration that truth really isn't the goal of Wikipedia, it's popularity. Let everyone participate, even if they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Here's an example of how to beat "consensus truth". The "consensus truth" is that the current US tax system is unfair to the poor and lets the rich off the hook. ("Unfair" and "off the hook" are opinion words, a quick way to identify "consensus truth".) The FACTS show that the poor already pay nothing, or very close to nothing, in federal taxes. The bottom 50% of taxpayers by income pay just 3.3% of the tax revenues (and a large number of them pay 0) while earning 13% of the income, while the top 0.1% of incomes pay 17% of the revenue while earning just 9% of the income. That's the truth, and it directly contradicts the "consensus truth", which shows that the consensus truth is not.

Ob simpsons quote

[genner]

Don't you worry about Wikipedia we'll change it when we get home. We'll change a lot of things.

2+2

[oldhack]

"Even 2+2 is 4 only if everyone agrees". Sum like that.

We can only hope...

[Deag]

That slashdot isn't considered some other publication.

Simson Garfinkel

[drquoz]

Simson Garfinkel? You mean that singing duo?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Truth...

[gambit3]

Wikipedia: Where consistent opinions are correct opinions.

Re:Truth...

[Kjella]

Wikipedia: Where persistent opinions are correct opinions.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Truth...

[TiggertheMad]

Wikipedia: Where persistent opinions are correct opinions.

There, fixed that for you

Don't bother, the OP will just revert it...

A Reasonable Aggregate of Truth

[writerjosh]

I think we shouldn't look at Wikipedia as being absolute truth, or not truth, but "a reasonable aggregate of truth." I know that's why I look to Wikipedia when I'm curious about something: not as a source of final truth on a subject, but a starting point. Wikipedia does a great job at collecting relevant information and presenting it in an easy to read fashion, but it should only be used as one tool in research.

As the article author suggests, Wikipedia, when compared to magazine articles or books, is still only the best opinions of other humans. True, magazine articles and books typically have more fact-checking involved - because the author has a reputation to protect - but it's still opinion - just like Wikipedia. The only way a reader can assess ultimate truth is to view Wikipedia in comparison to as many other publications as possible - online or offline. This is the scholastic method and should be the method for every Wikipedia reader. I know this isn't always the case, but this isn't always the case for your average book reader or magazine reader either: they read an opinion that jives with them, and it becomes truth - no different than a Wiki entry.

Re:A Reasonable Aggregate of Truth

[Surt]

Perhaps we should just consider Wikipedia a reasonable aggregation of information. Some true, some false.

Wikipedia takes the truth very seriously

[bradkittenbrink]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TRUTH

And of course

[ab8ten]

there is the danger of the self-refferential wiki-loop, where an unverified statement on wikipedia gets used in a reputable newspaper, which is then used to 'verify' the original statement.

The Register loves this sort of thing: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/17/wikipedia_and_the_mirror/ is a minor example, but who knows what else has been elevated to truth by circular reasoning? (smart alec answers to *that* question are welcome :))

Re:And of course

[MacDork]

A lot of the anti-climate change stuff uses similar tactics -- a couple of dissenting voices are used to support the idea that there is "widespread disagreement" on the topic.

On Wikipedia? Hardly. It has been my observation that Wiki is an echo chamber for the pro-climate change stuff. I had an article to reference, but it's gone. Apparently censored. It did exist on archive.org, but apparently it has been purged there too. Hmm, I wonder why. You can find a digg reference to it here, but again, no article text. I did finally manage to dig up some of the copy here... The cult of climate change has much more effective censors than the scientologists do apparently... For posterity, here's the interesting bit:

In contrast to the high-handed treatment that greet global warming skeptics, those who support the orthodoxy are puffed up and protected from criticism, their errors erased and their controversies hushed. This is the case with Naomi Oreskes, a scientist with a PhD who had arrived at an absurd finding: That no studies in a major scientific database questioned the UN view of climate change."

"For this reason, when visiting Oreskes's page on Wikipedia several weeks ago, I was surprised to read not only that Oreskes had been vindicated but that Peiser had been discredited. More than that, the page portrayed Peiser himself as having grudgingly conceded Oreskes's correctness.

Upon checking with Peiser, I found he had done no such thing. The Wikipedia page had misunderstood or distorted his comments. I then exercised the right to edit Wikipedia that we all have, corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.

Peiser wrote back saying he couldn't see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. Had I neglected to save them after editing them?, I wondered. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again! I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.

Nonplused, I investigated. Wikipedia logs all changes. I found mine. And then I found Tabletop's. Someone called Tabletop was undoing my edits, and, following what I suppose is Wiki-etiquette, also explained why. "Note that Peiser has retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong!" Tabletop said.

I undid Tabletop's undoing of my edits, thinking I had an unassailable response: "Tabletop's changes claim to represent Peiser's views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop's version."

Tabletop undid my undid, claiming I could not speak for Peiser.

Why can Tabletop speak for Peiser but not I, who have his permission?, I thought. I redid Tabletop's undid and protested: "Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him."

Tabletop parried: "we have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant."

Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I â" no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone's views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out. By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensur

philosophically groundless criticism

[circletimessquare]

the crticism offered in the story summary is accurate, but pointless. the idea would be to find some sort of impossibly noble source of information for which the criticism leveled at wikipedia does not also apply. since all sources of media suffer from the same sort of suspect appeal to authority or questionable fact checking, then the criticism leveled against wikipedia is not valid in the sense that it makes wikipedia any different from any other media source you can find

all media is suspect, anywhere. you go through life with a good bullshit meter, or you don't go through life at all. there is no such thing, nor will there ever be, a perfectly verifiable and 100% trustworthy media, anywhere on this planet. media is a human endeavour, and as such, it is as flawed as we are. it is not a question of purposeful intent or partisan manipulation, it is a question of the unattainability of true impartiality

it is impossible for you to discover a media source that does not also suffer from the same criticism leveled at wikipedia. so continue using wikipedia, with a healthy functioning bullshit meter, teh same bullshit meter you should have on when reading any other media soruce. the criticism is useless

learn to accept the fundamental limitations of media in your world, and stop expecting the impossible out of media. it is biased, and always will be

Re:philosophically groundless criticism

[Surt]

all media is suspect, anywhere. you go through life with a good bullshit meter, or you don't go through life at all.

Or you go through life anyway, and vote republican.

Useful Vs. Official

[Tablizer]

Wikipedia has errored on the side of being "cited" over being "useful". Opinions that may be subjective or not cite-able can still be very useful information.

What is needed is a kind of competitor that *does* allow "unofficial" info. One can use wikipedia when they want cite-able stuff and the less formal one for less formal tidbits. (And maybe link them somehow.)

For example, in my opinion one of the most striking things about the original video game "Asteroids" that set it apart was the brightness of the phaser torpedoes, due to its use of vector screen scanning instead of raster scanning. I put a note about this on wikipedia, but the "citation police" kept deleting it. This despite the fact that most of the existing article was not cited either. (Cut-off time rules?) It was a frustrating experience. Subjective opinions about why people liked (or thought others liked) X is useful info to many of us. Personal experience from an arcade owner about customers' first reactions would be interesting also, even if not citable.

There's a niche to be tapped. I even considered starting "casualpedia.org" to serve it, but don't want to manage/rent the fat server farms needed. (I've filled my quota on personal dot-bombs already.)

Multiple sources

[interiot]

but there is a problem ... many publications don't do any fact checking at all

That's why multiple sources are the best. Whenever sources disagree, the more reliable sources are trusted over less reliable sources.

Verifiability is really an appeal to authority--not the authority of truth, but the authority of other publications. Any other publication, really.

That's just not true. Many talk pages are filled with disputes over "my source X is more reliable than your source Y because ...". That's ultimately a very healthy discussion. And WP:RS does say that some sources aren't reliable enough to be worth including at all.

Calling Captain Kirk...

[One Louder]

So, if somebody creates a Wikipedia article called "Everything on Wikipedia is a Lie ", will it start arguing with itself, then explode?

Notability is King

[Drakkenmensch]

There's also the accepted rule that "Celebrity equals Existance." Don't believe me? Try and write a highly detailed wiki entry about a webcomic that has been consistently updating for years but won no awards, or a music band who has been steadily working on the independant scene but went largely unnoticed by the major labels. Your hard work is sure to be rewarded by a "lack of notability" deletion notice. Does this mean that I don't exist until I get the cover page of People magazine? Wikipedia seems to think so...

Help change Wikipedia for the better (seriously)

[snarfies]

There is a real attempt at changing some of Wikipedia's guidelines going on at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise

Please have a look, and please chime in. Please strike a blow AGAINST deletionism.

Irrelevant

[Yvan256]

We all know that the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom.

So, unless Wikipedia adds a huge DON'T PANIC header to their website, I won't be using it.

Truth is dangerous

[fermion]

The problem is that people require truth, rather than observation, as well as an over dependence on facts. Some articles are fact based. William Shatner portrayed Captain Jame Tiberius Kirk in 79 episodes of the ST:TOS. These are widely known, verifiable facts, and anyone who disputes them is likely delusional.

Some facts are less widely known, like what Shatner was doing last week at tea time, or what motivated someone to jack a car. One might be tempted to ask Shanter or the car jacker, and that would certainly give a credible version of the truth. But what if 10 people saw Shatner at the time on the state day, or what if the car jacker just had a discussion with someone prior the incident describing what he or she was feeling. And what if the first hand and observed description of the 'truth' did not match? Do we accept the personal accounts or first hand observations? Do we accept the car jackers claim that he had been offered the car as a gift when 10 people saw the car being taken at gunpoint? The problem with truth is that we are forced to accept a single version, even though, at least sometimes, both can be seen as reasonable in certain contexts.

Which is why there is no issue here. Wikipedia deals with facts, figures, and personal statements. This is a commonly accepted fact. This is what I saw, and many people agree with me. This is the gestalt consensus of the truth at this moment. Confusing this with anything other than fallible observation causes nothing but problems.

OTOH academic observation often talks about validity. Starting with this data, and using these methods, this is what a reasonable person would conclude. Is the data good? You be judge. Are the methods appropriate? You be the judge. Do you trust that the procedures are carried out properly? That is also a judgement call. There is no truth, just observation and valid conclusions. Wiki cannot handle this because it usually just include out of context 'facts', with little context. No way to know why these 'facts' are more valid that those reported last week. It is this exact thing that makes people so confused about health and nutrition issues. People tend to believe what they are told, even though there is no reason to believe it.

The problems with wikipedia:

[gr3y]

Wikipedia is not authoritative.

1. Wikipedia is not a primary source.
2. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

   Wikipedia's content is generated by pseudo-anonymous individuals who incorrectly assert the public Internet is a reliable source of information. The public Internet is not a reliable source of information, therefore wikipedia is not a reliable source.

3. Wikipedia is not an objective source.

   Wikipedia's editors break the rules governing their behavior and the behavior of others if it will benefit them. As a result, wikipedia advances the subjective views and beliefs of its editors.

4. Wikipedia is not a representative source.

   Contributing factors to this delusion include the competing concepts "notability" and "neutrality", as advanced by wikipedia. Lacking from that discussion, of course, is the question: notable or neutral, to who? Rather than host disputed versions of articles, representing the majority opinion and any significant minority opinions, wikipedia prefers a version advancing assertions, but not facts, which are easily disputed by any minority.

And I frankly despise the appearance of wikipedia in search results, or having some article on wikipedia quoted in a discussion online, as if it provides information of value, in lieu of the reliable primary sources wikipedia references, as if wikipedia itself is the source of that information, and not merely a link farm with some content wrapped around it.

But then, I make a living because of the difference between assertions and facts, and I'm apt to notice such things. Wikipedia is long on assertions, and short on facts.

Re:The problems with wikipedia:

[Andr T.]

Wikipedia is not a primary source.

It never wanted to be. I don't think this is a problem.

Wikipedia's content is generated by pseudo-anonymous individuals who incorrectly assert the public Internet is a reliable source of information. The public Internet is not a reliable source of information, therefore wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Not quite right. I think no one believes that the public internet is a reliable source of information, and neither Wikipedia. Wikipedia works based in the work of a community guided by a strict set of rules. This community would verify, correct and, if necessary, delete the content provided by any misguided person.

Wikipedia's editors break the rules governing their behavior and the behavior of others if it will benefit them. As a result, wikipedia advances the subjective views and beliefs of its editors.

I have to ask you some evidence for that claim. And, still, editors can be wrong as individuals. What can't happen is that a majority of editors do something like you said. Then, it would be a problem.

Contributing factors to this delusion include the competing concepts "notability" and "neutrality", as advanced by wikipedia. Lacking from that discussion, of course, is the question: notable or neutral, to who?

Now I think you do have a point. Of course, in wikipedia, the neutrality or notability of an article should be related to the body of possible readers, but it will be normally decided by body of editors. Even then, I think that point could be addressed to any encyclopedia: the only difference would be that the reference would be always the publisher.

Actually, it doesn't work like this

[saibot834]

Wikipedia doesn't say that A is true because reference X says so. Wikipedia says that reference X tells us that A is true. There is a fundamental difference:
In the first (incorrect) version, Wikipedia cites X and adds something to this, specifically that X is trustworthy and makes correct statements about A.
In the second, correct version, Wikipedia doesn't claim that A is true or false. It just claims that X claims that A is true. Wikipedia doesn't add anything, it simply accumulates facts and let the reader choose whether A is true or not, and whether X is trustworthy or not.

Nothing is true just because you can verify that someone else thinks it is true. That idea is stupid and so is this story.

Verifiability, not truth

[Stephen]

Wikipedia hasn't redefined truth. It is very explicit that doesn't claim to report truth, only verifiability. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability :

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

If readers sometimes look to it for truth, well, they're misusing it.

How Wikipedia Makes People Dumb

[TheModelEskimo]

As a WP user myself, I have to say that the editing process inculcates editors with a "truth has been established"ãmindset. I've never seen the ideal of a "search for truth"ãso subtly yanked out of the toolset of a group of intellectuals so fast as has happened at WP. When "Citation Needed" is used as a weapon much more often than an honest inquiry, you know that you're standing in the midst of hypocrites.

Oh, and I *am* a hypocrite too. But I'm trying to get better at defining what lengths I will or will not go to in an intellectual argument. It's really easy to pull the carpet right out from beneath your own education by attempting to bring down others' viewpoints for the sake of ego.

Always read the discussion pages.

[argent]

A couple of times I've had someone "correct" me pointing to Wikipedia, where the article that they're pointing to is one I'd contributed to. Sometimes the article has become self-contradictory under the influence of multiple editors, other times the article is being more actively edited by someone who he happens to agree with. Either way, I "know" at least as much about the subject as Wikipedia does.

You really can't tell what a Wikipedia entry really means without reading the discussion page. In fact, that's often more informative than the article itself.

Gold Standard for Useful Definition of Truth

[Roxton]

The gold standard for any useful definition of truth is, "What is most likely given the information available. Incorporate the uncertainty into your answer."

In this light, the Wikipedia standard is almost as good as it could possibly be.

Indeed

[autocracy]

Perhaps one of the best things to come from the Internet (for me, at least), is a high level of professional skepticism. I love Slashdot, I read it near religiously, but I know better. The truth for any Slashdot posting is usually found in the comments, or in some misreported part of the article. I know how to look at the comments, deal with conflicting statements, and find the real answer. Sure beats having a single source newspaper.

Hyper-conTextual reading beyond the lines

[gobbo]

When I was growing up, I read hypertext years before the 'web: encyclopedias. All the related articles listed at the end of each article were links to contextual aspects of the subject.

Wikipedia takes it further. I read an article that I intend to take seriously by also looking at the discussion page, and the history of edits. It is the saving grace of WP.

Good WP articles have two new dimensions available to the reader: TIME, and DEBATE. This is an astoundingly more efficient way to stimulate critical thinking about the topic than a simple article with references. Each article has multiple exposed viewpoints, and its growth pattern is part of its verifiability.

I can't stress this enough. It is a new kind of reading, something that will eventually become crucial to knowledge repositories.

Re:Help change Wikipedia for the better (seriously

[Onaga]

Please strike a blow AGAINST deletionism.

I prefer to think of it as Intelligent Editing.

This article may contain original research...

[bruce_garrett]

No...what blew my mind was seeing that "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims", disclaimer at the top of the article page. In the context of this discussion that's pretty hilarious...

Re:Jaron's new definition of "film director"

[SecurityGuy]

He is a director in the same sense I am a door to door salesman, mechanic, dirt bike rider, and diaper wetter.

Saying I once did those things is accurate. Saying that I "am" any of them is not because it creates the belief that I DO or have recently tried to sell something to someone, fixed broken machinery, ridden a low powered motorcycle on a dirt track, or soiled myself.

If only English were a rich enough language to denote the difference between what people once did and what they do now. Oh, wait, it is. :)

Not every single article

[Britz]

One article covers some events I was part of. While I would say that those were highly debated events and I probabely should not write about it myself, because I was involved, I still think it is very, very one-sided. I tried to argue my case on the discussion pages, but to no avail. For some reason the other side (radical liberals) thinks that their view must be the neutral one. And they have some more people.

They even got into an edit war with some Wikipedia-people, because actually those events are not even relvant enough to be part of that article.

And they still won. So now when someone reads about those events and wants to find out more he might, at some point, look at Wikipedia too check out what those events were all about. And as I am saying. What is in that article is complete bs.

And all the time I am thinking if I should get more involved because of the significance of Wikipedia. I guess I should.