Slashdot Log In
Wikipedia != Authoritative?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Sep 05, 2004 09:02 AM
from the well-duh-people dept.
from the well-duh-people dept.
Frozen North writes "Recently, this article in the Syracuse Post-Standard caused a stir by dismissing Wikipedia as an authoritative source, and even suggesting that it was a little deceptive by looking too much like a "real" encyclopedia. Techdirt suggested an experiment: insert bogus information into Wikipedia, and see how long it takes for the mistake to be removed. Well, I did that experiment, and the results weren't good: five errors inserted over five days, all of which lasted until I removed them myself at the end of the experiment."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
that doesn't mean they're not good for finding information however, you just have to check it from somewhere else as well(which is easier if you know what you should check too).
(real encyclopedias have errors in them too sometimes, encarta as one)
Re:surprising? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
The Horror (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, if Wikipedia did not exist, think of all the damage done by millions of people lacking information.
Parent
Re:The Horror (Score:5, Insightful)
" Think of all the damage done by the millions of people reacting to false information."
I have found Encyclopedia Brittanica to be extremely and subtly destructive. The short entry for Nobel prize winner Barbara McClintock [nobel.se] gave no idea that her scientific articles spanned a width of 80 feet when put together. I discovered that only after a web search. Her work is still important to molecular biologists. Reading EB gave no impression of her importance.
The paper version of Encyclopedia Brittanica is limited by how much the executives of the company want to spend on paper. They probably say something like this to writers: "Give us 500 words on Barbara McClintock."
Wikipedia has the advantage of being written by enthusiasts.
--
24 wars [hevanet.com] since WW2: Creating fear so rich [hevanet.com] people [hevanet.com] can profit.
Parent
Re:surprising? (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia entries are often entered by experts in that field
there is no verification of expertise of the wiki writers so it's more or less a "use at your own risk".
Parent
Peer Review (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
peer review doesn't always work (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree, however, that Wikipedia has a better model.
Parent
Re:surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:surprising? (Score:4, Insightful)
Once they print an edition it's out there
This is really crappy. He only let it sit for a short time
Wikipedia operates with under $40,000 per year. Their funding needs to be $2 or $3 million a year
Parent
Re:surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
it's not black and white, you just need to use your own brain, like when reading a newspaper.
encarta has mistakes in it. britannica has mistakes in it. probably cia world factbook has mistakes in it. if you just use one of them on basis of very important decisions you're stupid.
Parent
people arent skeptical enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, but the lack of a formal registration system and dependence on volunteers is going to hurt this project as it becomes more complex and more popular. I don't think the "open wiki" model scales so well as A LOT of wiki articles are full of disinformation and bias. Granted, most aren't, but there is a strong US-centric bias and some of us who have corrected disinformation only to see it reappear because of the citation of false facts makes me, at least, give up on contributing.
That said, the best advice is the line you just gave: always be skeptical about your sources. I think this is a postmodern idea, as this whole debate focuses on the assumption that britanica et al are infailable when in reality they have to deal with the exact same problems the wiki people have to deal with.
>like when reading a newspaper.
I would go as far as saying that people don't use their brain with the media. How many Americans still believe between the fictional connection between Saddam and 9/11?
The problem here is cultural and wikipedia is the symptom. People, in general, are not skeptical enough. There is way too much trust (this also applies to politics, religion, etc). Wiki readers know they are getting into something they can't trust unlike old media. The real catch (the real issue) is that old media is just as untrustworthy, if not more so because of ownership bias and other factors.
Parent
Re:surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Using that logic, very little on the web can ever be trusted.
Hackers often change websites, accounts get hacked (Gabe Newell?), people lie in posts all the time, whole websites can be designed to mislead you...
But this shows one important thing: you don't have to be able to trust a source for it to be useful. I don't trust most of the web, but if I do research and 15 websites agree on a fact, even though I don't trust each individual website, I can trust the consensus of 15 independent websites.
This phenomenon is present in Wikipedia because there are so many folks contributing. The liklihood is that errors will be corrected over time, and that even though you cannot trust it as infalliable, it proves to be an extremely useful tool. Further, it at least has a policy on accuracy and NPOV, whereas most other internet-based sources do not, or at least do not publish one publicly.
Parent
Re:surprising? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also it is worth pointing out that one should never cite sources in a paper from an encyclopedia, rather you should find the sources the encyclopedia gets its facts from and cite those. Anyone who has ever failed a paper for getting all of their facts from the encyclopedia, be it Britannica or Wikipedia, will know what I mean by this. So in this sense it doesn't even matter so much because if a Wikipedia fact isn't true then one just won't be able to find it in a primary source so citing it in a paper incorrectly won't be an issue. The problem is that teachers lie to little kids and brainwash them in thinking that an encyclopedia is an unquestionable source of all truth, when really nothing could be further from the case.
Parent
Re:surprising? (Score:5, Informative)
Why?
The problem is that the less mainstream topics, and the little details, aren't being fact checked. The user base can grow astronomically and this problem won't go away.
I suppose it might, arguably, get worse as the potential number of vandals increases. That's not the sort of problem that interests me most when we talk about accuracy. It's the little things that even the educated among us might not remember, little dates in history and minutia, that are likely to be slightly off.
I think this is might be a largely solvable problem by employing volunteer fact checkers - something that could be a really fun job. But it's never going to be 100%, since you're trying to hit a moving target.
Where did you go to school??!?!? My teacher taught me that:
one should never cite sources in a paper from an encyclopedia
Who taught you this, if not a teacher?
Parent
Re:surprising? (Score:5, Interesting)
From an academic perspective, Wikipedia suffers the same problem that most of the Internet suffers: the information provided has no pedigree. There is a loud debate going on these days about the high costs of publishing academic papers. One of the points that is seldom made is that printed journals provide a pedigree for the articles that is hard to forge: the article was authored by a certain person, published on a certain date, said whatever it said. Far too much of the content that is quoted from the Internet is simply untraceable. It cannot be reliably attributed to anyone, it can often be changed at will, often by someone other than the original author.
Parent
WikiProject for Fact and Reference Checking (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia is currently working to reference all the facts on it. There is a project set up to do it also here Fact and Reference Check [wikipedia.org]. Here is a quote:
There isn't any reason why every fact couldn't be referenced making Wikipedia one of the most authoritative sources of information ever created.
Parent
Re:If you repeat a lie often enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
In news reporting it's known as the "Enquirer Effect"
The National Enquirer, Matt Drudge, or Faux News reports some half-baked erroneous bullshit.
The 'legitimate' news organizations pick it up and report it from there.
A week later it's common knowledge and accepted as absolute fact that Al Gore said he "invented the Internet."
After all, it's quoted in all those news stories, isn't it?
Parent
Re:If you repeat a lie often enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is this thing called "The Media". It is like a shark. it feeds on anything and everything...including itself.
Where was the so-called "liberal" media when Clinton was going through all the sex scandal? On every channel, regardless of who it was...they were dragging out every dirty little detail about everything there was. Why? Why, ratings/money/cash.
"we got the bubble-headed bleach-blond who comes on at 5.
She can tell ya 'bout the plane crash with a gleem in her eye".
Are some outlets of this trash slanted? Sure...a little. Fox is biased toward conservatives and CNN is biased toward liberals...but not to a HUGE degree on either side. Why? If any of them air huge falsehoods, the OTHER news organizations jump all over it....more blood in the water...gotta feed that shark...gotta keep moving. So both "sides" walk a fine line...but their still both part of the same swimming shark out there.
To get to the bottom of something, you need to look at many different news, see where the "bullshit" is, filter it out and try to determine what is really going on...then double check with Reuters and the AP. But this is a lot of work and most people just sit zombie like in front of the tube waiting to be filled to the brim with fear.
Parent
Re:If you repeat a lie often enough... (Score:5, Informative)
You're talking about the FOX News that begins broadcasts by counting down the number of days "until you get to re-elect George W. Bush". That's more than a little biased. That's criminal false advertising when they claim to be "fair and impartial".
Parent
Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh ya its free. And not a bad quick referance.
M
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think anyone is complaining that the Wikipedia isn't useful. But how many times on Slashdot to you see somebody say "Nope, you're wrong. Look- it's in Wikipedia!" Wikipedia is being used as an authoritative source of information, and I think it's valid to at least ask the question, "Does the lack of an formal editorial process compromise the trustworthiness of the information posted on Wikipedia?"
Honestly, I think it's the first question that came to my mind when I first heard about how Wikipedia worked. I think there are arguments for both sides, but it doesn't help to say "Oh, well, it's free, so you can't complain if it contains inaccuracies." To say you can't complain about open source products (which I'll lump Wiki in with) because "it's free" only seems to confirm that free things are of poorer quality than expensive things, which I believe is the wrong message to send. Plus, the statement seems to be aimed at quashing valuable debate. Wouldn't it be better to talk about perceived failings in the submission process in order to see if they can be fixed/improved?
Parent
How about another experiment? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would be very interested in the results.
Oftentimes, Wikipedia articles are updates the same day that events happen. This is one advantage over *any* "real" encyclopedia.
Re:How about another experiment? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, sometimes it's even word-for-word....
Parent
Re:How about another experiment? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
And not in-depth either (Score:4, Interesting)
Wikipedia Errors (Score:4, Interesting)
Alex Halavais did the same experiment [halavais.net], changing 13 things, and all of those were changed. He did most of them over the course of the same day from the same IP, so they got caught.
Wikipedia is a tool, nothing more. If you believe everything you read on the internet, well, you get it.
You know, when I was in school ... (Score:5, Interesting)
How is this different.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I read inaccurate news. I read mistakes in references. The only difference here is that it can be malicious.
I'm sure that just like every other reference sourc Wikpedia isn't perfect, but it's pretty damn cool.
At least it doesn't have a political stance like a news source does, by endorsing a point of view, or a candidate. That worries me more than some prankster inserting bad data.
Re:How is this different.. (Score:5, Insightful)
p
Parent
Re:How is this different.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:How is this different.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything you read, be it on the Internet, in the newspapers, books etc. contains factual errors, mistakes by sloppiness and bias in many forms.
Wikipedia doesn't claim to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It's a springboard into any subject, giving you a quick overview and perhaps some links to take you further. Encyclopedias can't be used as references for anything beyond grade school anyway, so why hold wikipedia to a higher standard? What it is however, is completely fascinating and the closest thing to a real hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy we're likely to get. Just don't take it too seriously.
Parent
Kuhn model of science (Score:5, Interesting)
WIkipedia, IMHO, is the epitomy of that concept: if you get enough people on the Internet to write a common text, and go to great lengths to democratize the process, then you will get the generally accepted "truth". Even scam busters like Snopes often resort to the line of reasoning "this sounds too much like an urban myth, therefore it's an urbam myth" variant on the same theme.
Don't get me wrong-- I love the WIkipedia. In my book, it's enough truth to get you through the day, and that's all I really need 98% of the time.
Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's thousands of pages in Wikipedia dealing with up-to-the-minute descriptions of cultural phenomena that won't make it into the Britannica for years, if ever.
GENERAL DISCLAIMER for your convenience (Score:4, Informative)
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], the free encyclopedia.
General disclaimer - Use Wikipedia at your own risk! [slashdot.org] - Wikipedia does not give medical advice [slashdot.org] - Wikipedia does not give legal opinions [slashdot.org] - Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable [slashdot.org]
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
Wikipedia is an online open-content encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups who are developing a common resource of human knowledge. Its structure allows any individual with an Internet connection and World Wide Web browser to alter the content found here. Therefore, please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals who are knowledgeable in the particular areas of expertise necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information about any subject in Wikipedia.
That's not to say that you won't find much valuable and accurate information at Wikipedia, however please be advised that Wikipedia CANNOT guarantee, in any way whatsoever, the validity of the information found here. It may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the particular area you are interested in learning about. We are working on ways to select and approve more trustable versions of articles, but still without warranty. The closest thing to this that currently exists is the Wikipedia:Featured articles [slashdot.org] process, but even the articles listed there may have been mercilessly edited shortly before you view them.
Please make sure that you understand that the information provided here is being provided free and gratuitously, and that no kind of agreement or contract is created between you and the owners or users of this site, the owners of the servers upon which it is housed, the individual Wikipedia contributors, any project administrators, sysops or anyone else who is in any way connected with this project or sister projects subject to your claims against them directly. You are being granted a limited license to copy anything from this site; it does not create or imply any contractual or extracontractual liability on the part of Wikipedia or any of its agents, members, organizers or other users.
Any of the trademarks, service marks, collective marks, design rights, personality rights or similar rights that are mentioned, used or cited in the articles of the Wikipedia encyclopedia are the property of their respective owners. Their use here does not imply that you may use them for any other purpose other than for the same or a similar informational use as contemplated by the original authors of these Wikipedia articles under the GFDL licensing scheme. Unless otherwise stated Wikipedia and Wikimedia sites are neither endorsed nor affiliated with any of the holders of any such rights and as such Wikipedia can not grant any rights to use any otherwise protected materials. Your use of any such or similar incorporeal property is at your own risk.
Please note that that the information found here may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws, but as this infor
Please be kind - message from Jimbo (Score:5, Insightful)
A Wikipedian put it this way the other day: In my neighborhood, people make a habit of picking up the trash. Please don't come and litter just to see if someone will pick it up.
So you know, like, be cool, huh?
WikiLove,
Jimbo Wales
Experiment Not Long Enough . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
The success of the Wikipedia is that it is possible to correct errors when they are identified by whomever found the error. This is a great strength over closed encyclopedia.
Re:Oh crap (Score:5, Insightful)
"It's weird and scary and dangerous and a threat to my job, so I'm going to condemn it." Cf. Microsoft, MPAA, RIAA, buggy-whip makers.
Parent
Re:I added an entry about myself (Score:5, Funny)
No, you're still there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Coward [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Your sig (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't accept that people don't have this belief, so try and make the lack of it a belief in itself which is absurd.
You don't need a belief system to not believe in something. Otherwise you'd need a special religion for each non-existant thing, i.e. the non-tooth fairy believers religion, the non-santa claus believers religion.
Just because lots of theists find it difficult to wrap their heads around the concept of not needing to believe in anything, they find a need to fit everything into a neat little belief box. As though they're embarrassed about having a belief system while an atheist doesn't.
Parent
Re:I added an entry about myself (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I added an entry about myself (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
oh please (Score:5, Informative)
I changed the article to a truthful one and it was beaten down.
Oh please. You changed it to an anti-GNAA editorial sprinkled with slants. Your "truthful" details (as I and the vast majority of concerned Wikipedians believe), damaged that article. They weren't flat-out lies so to speak, but they changed the tone of the article for the worse, altering the version that survived a previous debate.
popularity contest for certain points of view.
I suppose it should be changed to a contest for only SilentCrs [wikipedia.org]'s point of view? Mass rule, mob rule, res publica ("rule of the people" i.e. republic, a very broad term): call it what you want. Yes it's a popularity contest of opinions, but does a better way exist? Mutual agreement among users is the best way as it leverages the minds and experiences of multiple people as opposed to those of an individual.
No, it's not perfect; but in the case of the GNAA article, it has worked admirably, and for the second time. Users have put aside their personal objections against the GNAA's activities and agreed upon an informative and unequivocal page. It is only you who has yet again disrupted this, with your personal crusade against the GNAA.
Parent
Re:But.. (Score:5, Insightful)
How can you call it a "straw man" when it's entirely accurate as an argument? The "stable" Wikipedia you mention does not yet exist, and therefore arguing that the article writer should have used it instead of the "bleeding edge" Wikipedia is silly.
Parent
I'd disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps you're more pessimistic than I am, with regard to human nature.
Parent
Re:I'd disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you'll grant that there are more honest people than asshats in the world, then over long periods of time, the wiki will tend towards authoritativeness as intentional errors are weeded out.
There are a lot of problems with that. For one thing, not everyone in the world will ever use Wikipedia. So we're only talking about the proportion of people who use Wikipedia. Another problem is that it's much easier to introduce intentional errors than it is to introduce true facts. So people inserting errors have a basic advantage there. Finally, you assume that merely being honest is enough, but it's not. You have to not only be honest, but you have to be correct.
A lot of the errors on Wikipedia fall under that last category. This is especially true in the more technical categories, where there are a lot of amateurs who think they know things but are just completely wrong. It's a similar situation to a lot of the problems with Slashdot and its moderation system. The majority is not always right.
Parent
Watched like a hawk... (Score:5, Interesting)
But I agree with what you said... if the wiki is considered unauthoritative, then it is more likely that people will scrutinize and correct the content. But the problem is that eventually this behaviour will result in the belief that the wiki is authoritative. I guess the best thing to do is to continuously raise this issue in order to provoke people to be discerning with respect to the wiki content.
Parent
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Informative)
You also say you add "perspective". If it's your perspective on the matter rather than some notable perspective, you may have run afoul of the no-original-research [wikipedia.org] policy.
Parent
Re:Cant be Censorship (Score:4, Informative)
Who modded this crap insightful? To censor is to remove "objectionable" speech, whatever that may be and whoever does it. The only relevant difference is whether it's a kind of censorship permitted by the law/constitution/whatever.
Parent