Slashdot Mirror
The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
Hugh Pickens writes "Episteme, a magazine about the social dimensions of knowledge, has a special issue on the epistemology of mass collaboration, with many of the articles focusing on Wikipedia. One of the most interesting articles is by Lawrence M. Sanger on the special role of experts in the age of Wikipedia. Sanger says the main reason that Wikipedia's articles are as good as they are is that they are edited by knowledgeable people to whom deference is paid, although voluntarily, but that some articles suffer precisely because there are so many aggressive people who 'guard' articles and drive off others (PDF), including people more expert than they are. 'Without granting experts any authority to overrule such people, there is no reason to think that Wikipedia'a articles are on a vector toward continual improvement,' writes Sanger. Wikipedia's success cannot be explained by its radical egalitarianism or its rejection of expert involvement, but instead by its freedom, openness, and bottom-up management and there is no doubt that many experts would, if left to their own devices, dismantle the openness that drives the success of Wikipedia. 'But the failure to take seriously the suggestion of any role of experts can only be considered a failure of imagination,' writes Sanger. 'One need only ask what an open, bottom-up system with a role for expert decision-making would be like.' The rest of the articles on the epistemology of mass collaboration are available online, free for now." Sanger was one of the founders of Wikipedia, and of its failed predecessor Nupedia, who left the fold because of differences over the question of the proper role of experts. Sanger forked Wikipedia to found Citizendium, which we have discussed on several occasions. After 2-1/2 years, Citizendium has a few tenths of a
percent as many articles as Wikipedia.
[Citation needed]
You can say a lot of things about wikipedia, but if you say that the majority of articles are worse off now than in (say) 2002, you'll be full of shit. You can point to some good articles in the past that have degraded from random edits. Or articles which have been subject to turf wars. But on the whole, there is improvement.
One of the main problems of Wikipedia is it has firm guidelines on what it is and what it is not.
Actually, I wish. It's simply not true. They may have a few core rules (e.g. the one you complain about) that are quite rigid, but overall there is virtually no rule in Wikipedia that is not subject to modification - including by certain senior people at Wikipedia - when circumstances dictate it.
Don't take my word for it - I got it from the horse's mouth. He says it in so many words.
Beetle B.
Indeed, because I had a related problem. A series of related articles I wished to edit had considerable problems. I worked on the item described in one of the articles while I was in the Navy, I had the unclassified manuals at one elbow, at the other elbow I had a stack of expensive reference books... All were trumped because a handful of websites all referenced the same handful of coffee table books - and disagreed with me.
Except there aren't any checks and balances - there is only whether or not the guy you discussing the issue with has more time on his hands and whether or not he can quote an interpretation of policy that supports his position. Your story is one of how the checks and balances fail.
WP:EPR
Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies
Dig in. Or we could look at the increase in "Featured" articles and "Good" article stats, though the latter is not a community process but an individual process.
Perhaps associated with its culture of 'experts', or perhaps simply its low population. One needs look no further than the Homeopathy article, which on Wikipedia is strongly rooted in reality, but on Citizendium is largely controlled by one Homeopath editor (who has been banned from Wikipedia for pushing his unsupportable POV), and leans towards promotion and advocacy.
The average is usually below the best and above the worst. People "know" different truths. That wouldn't be much of a problem if only proven facts could be entered into Wikipedia, but Wikipedia actually uses a simple truth-by-discussion approach, weighed by the dedication which people are willing to put behind their point of view. This approach is cemented by the "no original research" rule. A citation is not proof, just a deference to an external evaluation mechanism. It is therefore no surprise that any one Wikipedia article isn't at the top of its field. Wikipedia's strength is the collection, not the individual factoid. It doesn't need the experts to achieve average results for the whole, as long as it can keep the other end away too.
That wouldn't be much of a problem if only proven facts could be entered into Wikipedia, but Wikipedia actually uses a simple truth-by-discussion approach, weighed by the dedication which people are willing to put behind their point of view.
No, it's about verifiable sources. You shouldn't be discussing what's true, you should be discussing what's supported by references. That's a fundamental Wikipedia policy.
This approach is cemented by the "no original research" rule.
Allowing original research would give the problem you claim exists - as then you would have people claiming that what they say is true based on their "research", despite a lack of any sources.
A citation is not proof, just a deference to an external evaluation mechanism.
What would constitute a proof?
It is therefore no surprise that any one Wikipedia article isn't at the top of its field.
Well, if the worst that can be said of Wikipedia is that it's not the number 1 best reference, I don't think that's too bad for something that's free on the web.
With cheap disk space, and cheap bandwidth, and volunteers doing the work... where is the money going?
$130K - Board expenses, including D&O insurance
$472K - Executive director expenses. Includes salaries for Executive Director and Deputy Director; some fundraising and travel expenses; consultants and contractors; staff and volunteer development
$2.7M - Technology. Includes salaries for technical staff, servers, bandwidth and contractor expenses.
$1.6M - Office & Admin. Includes salaries for finance/admin staff, audit fees, fundraising expenses, office rent, office supplies, bank fees, etc.
$595K - Outreach programs. Includes salaries for program staff, public outreach expenses, communications expenses.
$357K - Legal.
$96K - Wikimania. Includes travel for board, advisory board and staff.
Gee, that was hard. Took all of 2 minutes to find this info.