Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia As a "War Zone," Rather Than a Collaboration
horselight writes "A new study by sociologists studying social networking has determined that Wikipedia is not an intellectual project based on mutual collaboration, but a war zone. The study finds that although the content does end up being accurate as a rule, it's anything but neutral or unbiased. The study includes extensive data on access and editing patterns of users related to major events, such as the death of Michael Jackson and the edit storms that ensued." The article explains that the research (here's the paper at PLoS One) looked in particular at controversial entries, not ones about obscure duck-hunting equipment or long-settled standards.
The question is who reads Wikipedia for "current events"? Nobody, if you want to read about Michael Jackson dying go to fucking CNN.
....And go to Wikipedia, for what exactly? Horribly misleading articles fully of misinformation, policed by basement dwelling geeks with nothing better to do than enforce their version of the truth? Ha! Some people get the naive idea they are going to improve Wikipedia by at least adding some new article on a subject many people might be interested in, thus making it a more complete source of information, only to see their articles shot down in flames because --- OMFG --- this article wouldn't belong in a 500-lb ink and paper Encyclopedia set, so of course we absolutely can't have it stored in digital format along with all sorts of other relevant information, no sir!