Yes. I think what bothers me is that Wikipedia styles itself an "encyclopedia" instead of, as you say, a "convenience" source or something along those lines. Maybe I'm just showing my age (at 22?!) but to me the term encyclopedia implies reliable and well-researched compendium of knowledge. Wikipedia's got the last part covered (compendium of knowledge); it's the first bit that needs work before I'll not hesitate to call it an encyclopedia.
Actually, you know what? I don't think it's just me. I bet you the fact that Wikipedia styles itself an "encyclopedia" lulls a lot of otherwise intelligent people into a sense of false trust (even with the "Only a dunce would trust me!" disclaimer at the bottom of every page). Sure, it's just a matter of word choice. But words signify things that matter, dammit, they matter to students and researchers. Oh, hell with it.
"The more controversial topics attract more idiots, and the ratio of informed people to uninformed people drops to a level where it's hard to keep things managed well."
So in other words: "The fewer [readers/editors], the better [the product]", since higher traffic means a higher fraction of "idiots." Seems to go against Wikipedia's core philosophy, doesn't it?
I beg your pardon. Are you saying it's my fault the article wasn't corrected for the entire two months before I'd ever even seen the article for the first time?
And what if I weren't quite so skeptical and jaded--suppose I were a grade school student doing a report on the university, and took the stuff about George Peabody's "rope theory" at face value. What then?
Yes, yes, I know there's a disclaimer at the bottom of every page saying essentially that "Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source; its only reliable use is entertainment." But this, in my opinion, invalidates the justification for its existence as an encyclopedia. (It is still, of course, a very interesting and very successful social experiment.)
"It's useful for looking up historical names and dates and events."
Are you sure about that? More times than I care to remember, I've seen statements like: "Keira Knightley (born March 26, 1985...)... made her film debut at the age of 11 in A Village Affair (1994)."
And what of everyone who read the article before someone more knowledgeable noticed the mistake and corrected it?
And please note I'm not talking of small errors of interpretation or language. I'm talking about honkers like "Prof. George Peabody expanded on string theoristBrian Greene's work to develop rope theory" (paraphrased)--two months uncorrected when I read it on the Columbia University article. You'll find shit like this scattered across the entire encyclopedia, if you're watchful.
Yes, I've seen obvious vandalism--and I mean obvious--on articles ranging from black hole theory to obscure Norwegian towns. Until I'd come along, they'd typically gone unreverted for weeks or more. And yes, I did revert them, but once you've read that a world-renowned figure skater was a member of GNAA, how can you trust anything you read on that site--especially when vandalism isn't always quite so obvious?
From what I've seen of Wikipedia, vandalism strikes obscure articles as much as it does the articles of the moment. Besides, if the article is really so popular, vandalism ought to be reverted within a timeframe approaching zero. Isn't that premise the entire foundation of Wikipedia?
That there is a need on Wikipedia to lock articles whenever traffic happens to spike indicates, to me, a serious flaw in the model.
Just in case you hadn't known, the Economist once mentioned Wikipedia, in passing, in a favorable light. However, I suspect if the magazine reviewed Wikipedia more thoroughly, it would come down much more critically.
Why do the Wikipedia admins need to lock popular, topical and controversial articles from editing? Is it because these articles somehow attract more vandals than well-meaning passersby and contributors?
Or is it just that these popular, topical and controversial articles make Wikipedia's fundamental flaws more obvious?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. I think what bothers me is that Wikipedia styles itself an "encyclopedia" instead of, as you say, a "convenience" source or something along those lines. Maybe I'm just showing my age (at 22?!) but to me the term encyclopedia implies reliable and well-researched compendium of knowledge. Wikipedia's got the last part covered (compendium of knowledge); it's the first bit that needs work before I'll not hesitate to call it an encyclopedia.
Actually, you know what? I don't think it's just me. I bet you the fact that Wikipedia styles itself an "encyclopedia" lulls a lot of otherwise intelligent people into a sense of false trust (even with the "Only a dunce would trust me!" disclaimer at the bottom of every page). Sure, it's just a matter of word choice. But words signify things that matter, dammit, they matter to students and researchers. Oh, hell with it.
"The more controversial topics attract more idiots, and the ratio of informed people to uninformed people drops to a level where it's hard to keep things managed well."
:)
So in other words: "The fewer [readers/editors], the better [the product]", since higher traffic means a higher fraction of "idiots." Seems to go against Wikipedia's core philosophy, doesn't it?
Or is this too reductionist?
I beg your pardon. Are you saying it's my fault the article wasn't corrected for the entire two months before I'd ever even seen the article for the first time?
And what if I weren't quite so skeptical and jaded--suppose I were a grade school student doing a report on the university, and took the stuff about George Peabody's "rope theory" at face value. What then?
Yes, yes, I know there's a disclaimer at the bottom of every page saying essentially that "Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source; its only reliable use is entertainment." But this, in my opinion, invalidates the justification for its existence as an encyclopedia. (It is still, of course, a very interesting and very successful social experiment.)
"It's useful for looking up historical names and dates and events."
...) ... made her film debut at the age of 11 in A Village Affair (1994)."
Are you sure about that? More times than I care to remember, I've seen statements like: "Keira Knightley (born March 26, 1985
This does not exactly inspire trust.
And what of everyone who read the article before someone more knowledgeable noticed the mistake and corrected it?
And please note I'm not talking of small errors of interpretation or language. I'm talking about honkers like "Prof. George Peabody expanded on string theorist Brian Greene's work to develop rope theory" (paraphrased)--two months uncorrected when I read it on the Columbia University article. You'll find shit like this scattered across the entire encyclopedia, if you're watchful.
Yes, I've seen obvious vandalism--and I mean obvious--on articles ranging from black hole theory to obscure Norwegian towns. Until I'd come along, they'd typically gone unreverted for weeks or more. And yes, I did revert them, but once you've read that a world-renowned figure skater was a member of GNAA, how can you trust anything you read on that site--especially when vandalism isn't always quite so obvious?
From what I've seen of Wikipedia, vandalism strikes obscure articles as much as it does the articles of the moment. Besides, if the article is really so popular, vandalism ought to be reverted within a timeframe approaching zero. Isn't that premise the entire foundation of Wikipedia?
That there is a need on Wikipedia to lock articles whenever traffic happens to spike indicates, to me, a serious flaw in the model.
Just in case you hadn't known, the Economist once mentioned Wikipedia, in passing, in a favorable light. However, I suspect if the magazine reviewed Wikipedia more thoroughly, it would come down much more critically.
Why do the Wikipedia admins need to lock popular, topical and controversial articles from editing? Is it because these articles somehow attract more vandals than well-meaning passersby and contributors?
Or is it just that these popular, topical and controversial articles make Wikipedia's fundamental flaws more obvious?