Wikipedia Criticism

[Nartwak]

I was going to PM some people about this subject and gather individual impressions, but I decided I was too lazy for that, my inbox was too small, and that I was nearly interested in the popular opinion of Joe Forumer. So I'm making a thread about it.

 

I ran across a link today what contained a transcribed presentation titled THE GREAT FAILURE OF WIKIPEDIA, it's about what you may expect it to be about. Any thoughts on it? For my part, I agree with the speaker.

[Oerwinde]

I find wikipedia more entertaining than informative. I go in thinking what I'm reading is probably at least 80% right and figure thats a decent number as long as I'm not doing research for a project or something.

[mkreku]

Most of wikipedia is right, some of it is not. Just like every encyclopedia ever written. I don't think it's better and I don't think it's worse. I would not use a wikipedia article as a source for my scientific report, but I do use it when I am writing personal stuff on an internet geek board.

 

What people seem to forget is that there is no absolute truth. No matter how many experts and scientists and researchers you have to write an article, you'll always end up in the same situation as the wikipedia one: people have different opinions about everything and unless the subject is somehow provable to 100%, you're going to have to compromise. That's how each and every article in a "professional" encyclopedia was made, only on a smaller scale.

 

I even saw a study where someone had compared a "real" encyclopedia with wikipedia and it turned out that the difference in correctness was only about 1-2%.

[Oerwinde]

Most of wikipedia is right, some of it is not. Just like every encyclopedia ever written. I don't think it's better and I don't think it's worse. I would not use a wikipedia article as a source for my scientific report, but I do use it when I am writing personal stuff on an internet geek board.

 

What people seem to forget is that there is no absolute truth. No matter how many experts and scientists and researchers you have to write an article, you'll always end up in the same situation as the wikipedia one: people have different opinions about everything and unless the subject is somehow provable to 100%, you're going to have to compromise. That's how each and every article in a "professional" encyclopedia was made, only on a smaller scale.

 

I even saw a study where someone had compared a "real" encyclopedia with wikipedia and it turned out that the difference in correctness was only about 1-2%.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There have been a couple studies with the encyclopedia comparisons. One of them actually found Wikipedia to be more accurate.

[Tigranes]

For serious academic endeavours, wikipedia is often a good place to get a rough idea of things, if one possesses the mental proficiency to 'tag' all wikipedia information possibly generalised and/or untrue, and upon inquiry of more reliable sources discern a proper depth of understanding.

[Colrom]

The real problem is that some folks who lack experience are too inclined to believe what they read.

 

Wiki is just like the rest.

 

It should not be understood to be a popular encyclopedia.

 

It is different however in that it is vigorously patrolled and controlled in real time by groups and individuals with agendas.

 

You can't even get the straight story of the Barbary Pirates out of wiki because some folks want the story to serve as a backdrop to our current adventures in the middle east and want to edit away the Dutch privateer element.

 

That's OK though because the 1909 Brittanica item on the Barbary Pirates is similarly political (I wonder if its content was influenced by British interests in the middle eastern oil - Anglo Persion Oil, now BP, was formed in 1909). That item is quoted widely on the web.

 

I once tried to modify a wiki description of a US Catholic Group that made it seem like they were an official instrument of the Church - which they arn't.

 

One of their people had a trigger set which detected changes as they were being made and they jumped in and changed most of my stuff right back to what they wanted the wiki to say while I was still editing.

 

I never went back to that listing after that.

 

It is not worth the effort to try to correct it.

 

As long as you understand what wiki is it can be a good resource - or a good starting point in looking for other resources.

[Nartwak]

That's a crux of the speaker's thesis.

Edited September 14, 2006 by Nartwak

[Lucius]

I just read in the news yesterday that according to Wiki, my city is rife with drug addicts and gang violence, with mall shootings and what not. A city of some 10.000 people. It seems now someone has rushed into fixing it.

 

"In the recent years there have been stories about crime and drugs in the medias, even in this Wiki, but the stories are wildly exaggerated and most of it cannot be documented. Niv

[Walsingham]

I must be honest and say I only made it half way through. I found the structure of the piece hard to follow when written. Maybe as a speech it would work better.

 

The central argument appears to be: Wikipedia is anice idea, but it sucks because it is abused, and is often wrong.

 

This is true, but then EVERYTHING I've ever seen that exists purely online is poorly researched by comparison with hardcopies, and partisan. Indeed much mainstream journalism is no worse than Wiki.

 

I find wiki's accessibility, and the fact that it is obviously amateur helps keep one in the correct frame of mind.

[Nartwak]

Go. Never darken my doorstep again.

 

The audio can be found here.

[astr0creep]

I like Wiki a lot.

 

I wouldn't write it as a source of information for a "serious" research project but I will use it often to give me direction, pointers, ideas, etc. It is a tool and, for me, a good one as long as I don't completely rely on it.

 

It is the sum of human knowledge, with all the flaws that this statement implies.

[Lucius]

Whenever I read something important, like I did yesterday regarding the bolshevik (Damn reds!) attempted invasion of Poland post WW1, I can't help but think that the details I'm getting fed could just as easily be utter BS, I have no way to tell. Unless perhaps if it had stated that Alien gunships arrived to assist the Poles.

But y'all know what I mean... right?

[mkreku]

Ooh. I just tried the editing function in Wikipedia. I added a few details to the Gothic 3 stub. So far noone's disputed me )

[Lucius]

You can edit the entire world! And noone can stop you, you swedish bastard! )

[Kaftan Barlast]

The only real critiscism that can be implied to Wikipedia is that its retelling of events will be a compromise between the views of the different sides, whereas as an encyclopedia article written by one person will not have to compromise.

 

 

An example of this is anything related to Israel/Palestine where anything except for the most established an non-controversial accounts of the conflict are promptly edited out by pro-israeli or pro-palestinian contributors.

Edited September 14, 2006 by Kaftan Barlast

[Colrom]

It's not just wiki and it's not just the internet, print is just as messed up.

 

So far as I can tell the history of the Barbary Pirates or Barbary Corsairs or whatever has been so political for so long that it is hard to find decent print sources (books) that are not pushing a political viewpoint. Even going back to the 1820s there was politics involved in the story - at least in America where slavery was an issue and stories of white slavery were popular amoung abolitionists.

 

There's some connection with Spanish privateers going back to the 1600s and 1700s too.

 

That gets you back to the Crusades. No politics there eh?

 

So........

 

Maybe mostly info about philips head screwdrivers is kinda clean and fact based.

 

But forget about info on number 2 grade lumber. That's completely corrupted.

 

Now you know.

 

More than you think of what you think you know is actually somebody's BS.

 

By the way, that little bit "the truth is not notable" is wonderful!

 

The only stuff I really trust on wiki is the stuff I believe (hope) is not notable!

 

The rest of the stuff on wiki is certainly false - somewhere! But where?

[Diamond]

I must be honest and say I only made it half way through. I found the structure of the piece hard to follow when written. Maybe as a speech it would work better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I thought exactly that.

 

Moreover, the author seems to be whining a lot. As a result, the entropy of the article is extremely low. "Some Joe has deleted my edits on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is vandalised. Wikipedia is innacurate. Wikipedia is that. Wikipedia is this." So what? Why Wikipedia fails because of it?

[~Di]

The thing is that anyone... and I mean anyone... with an internet connection can edit anything on Wikipedia. That makes the information contained therein to be less than useless, since there is no way to know who put it there, or who might have changed it. At least with a regular enclyclopedia, once it's in print it can't be rewritten by any idiot with an axe to grind.

 

So I voted "failed experiment".

[Diamond]

The thing is that anyone... and I mean anyone... with an internet connection can edit anything on Wikipedia. That makes the information contained therein to be less than useless, since there is no way to know who put it there, or who might have changed it. At least with a regular enclyclopedia, once it's in print it can't be rewritten by any idiot with an axe to grind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but how many idiots are there that go and check their edits on a daily basis?

It is people who care (and know something) about the subject usually do regular editing work.

 

So, I feel, saying it is "less than useless" is not correct. At least I can assert that with with science and tech-related articles.

[Musopticon?]

It can't be rewritten by just any idiot. Or, should I say it can, but the changes are not going to stay there, since the community around this strong internet fad is so tight. Everything is monitored. You just can't write complete ****, since there's always 200 other folks who'll spend 24/7 there to correct you.

 

It's sort of an innate self-discipline mechanism.

[LadyCrimson]

Wiki is 40% popular culture and wishful thinking that rumors or hopes are fact, 40% good intentions and 20% fanatics with agendas that don't equal even attempted objectivity. I consider it a failing but interesting experiment in the generation/opinion gaps between old ways and new ways of thinking/broadcasting and whether or not those gaps are or are not reality or just perception - if you get what I mean.

 

It can be useful at times...not that I ever go there except when a Google search takes me to one of their entries.

[~Di]

Anyone can change anything on the site. Anyone. I argued with someone about a specific figure, since I had CNN and BBC sources that give one figure, and this person had inflated the figure to enhance her political position. I challenged her to prove it. A day later, she came back with a Wiki link that gave her exact figure. Two days later that figure was different. I went in and edited the figure myself, thus proving (at least to myself) that every piece of info on Wiki is suspect, because it simply cannot be sourced. *shrug*

 

I'm not making this stuff up. If "facts" cannot be proven or sourced, then they are as unreliable as gossip, rumor and hearsay, in my view. And that makes it utterly useless.

Edited September 14, 2006 by ~Di

[thepixiesrock]

There is information on Wikipedia that is correct, and therefore, it isn't "less than useless" because it is in fact, correct.

[Diamond]

I suppose it boils down to the type of articles you read there. I think it is pretty hard to distort the facts on the page about Intel processor architecture or number theory.

[~Di]

If one cannot discern between information that is correct and information that is not correct, then referencing the site to find out something one does not already know is useless. That's kind of obvious, I would think.

Edited September 14, 2006 by ~Di