Wikipedia != Authoritative? 783
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."
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)
Duh. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a publicly editable encyclopedia. By now, people should realize that there are many kiddies out there who have nothing better to do than to screw with others.
Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh ya its free. And not a bad quick referance.
M
Re:surprising? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Exaggerated Antihype (Score:3, Insightful)
Wikipedia has proven the concept, and I'm sure we'll see more and more advanced community-managed information sharing projects in the future. For example, adding a moderation system like /.'s would already be a huge step forward.
You forgot to measure page hits.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, if you dont know, you look it up. If I check encyclopedia britannica for info it's cause I dont know the answer. Most people looking for info are not in a position to rate the quality of the answer. And most people who have the answers are not going to go looking for the fun of fact checking.
You are right though. The system does seem to have some fatal flaws and might need some rethinking.
Keep in mind though that many "authoritative sources" often present myths as fact. I can think of three.
1)The NYT claiming that rockets cant work in space
2)History books claiming that the Civil War was fought over slavery
and
3)Newton getting hit in the head with an apple.
My Britannic still lists the Soviet Union! (Score:1, Insightful)
This whole topic is one big troll (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Case in point. (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, just now (at 10:13 EST) I entered a non-authoritative entry into the Wikipedia under the topic of Authority [wikipedia.org] It's just a note at the bottom that says
"[Note: This comment in brackets is an unauthoritative comment that was added by an individual]"
Now my foolish edit is available to the whole world -- I didn't have to log in or anything. So gradually it gets fixed. Fortuneately I did not say anything that is untrue. However what about the poor student who wanders into the topic before it gets fixed -- at one point in time. I could never use this as a definitive resource until more protection is put in place to help guarantee the accuracy of the information. How do to that? I don't know .. but I'm sure the suggestions are coming in all the discussions here.
Re:bleh (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Mistakes in Encyclopedic References (Score:3, Insightful)
The value of encyclopedias isn't that they are right about everything. It is that they cover so many topics in an easy-to-understand manner. If you need more in depth knowledge or need to ensure correctness, you really should be using some sources which are a little bit more primary--books or journal articles written on the specific subject you are looking into.
Everyone who rights for the wikipedia should therefore cite references where people could look for more info. Also, I don't think that one person entering 5 errors is that harmful--the quality level is still quite high. Either a lot of people would need to make small numbers of errors (which hasn't really happened--most people write on topics they know about) or one person would need to add many more errors. If this happened, it is much more likely that they would get caught--after noting an error, an editor would likely check that person's other contributions.
Re:surprising? (Score:3, Insightful)
The ironic thing is that the wikipedia might actually be more correct more often than normal encyclopedias. Wikipedia entries are often entered by experts in that field who have the best understanding of the subject. "Real" encyclopedia enties are written (as I understand it) by information researchers who are experts at researching information, not in the subjects of the fields they're writing about. The tradeoff is, of course, that there is no verification of expertise of the wiki writers so it's more or less a "use at your own risk".
Re:How is this different.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Articles in newspapers can be malisciously incorrect as well. One name: Jayson Blair [google.com]
I'd disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps you're more pessimistic than I am, with regard to human nature.
How surpising, not. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is soo obvious.
Yet Wikipedia is an excelent *part* of a search.
The idea to put some sort of "Unverified" label on an article is just as unreliable.
An indicator by -how many individuals- it has been read / reviewed is probably the best you'll ever get.
And even then it's possible it'll only be a popularity contest.
Re:surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another example where the internet is no different (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:How is this different.. (Score:5, Insightful)
p
What a methodology! (Score:3, Insightful)
A more accurate test, it would seem to me, would be to take articles of varying importance and, in fact, check the facts. (While you're at it, do the same for analogous articles in, say, Britannica.) The one problem with this is that checking facts is a very intense process, if you're serious about it.
Without having gone through this process, it would appear hard to say whether traditional publishers are any better at it than the volunteers who contribute to Wikipedia, except that over the past few years, I've grown to be as skeptical of traditional "authoritative" sources as I am of the morning newsprint.
I've worked in the publishing industry, and in my opinion, a number of publishers considered "authoritative" are living off the inertia of a time when sharp, intelligent people were cheap to hire, and one could afford to have encyclopedias checked by "armies" of worker bees.
Cheers...
Re:You forgot to measure page hits.... (Score:3, Insightful)
and then (emphasis mine):
How is five days "a week"? How are twenty hours "a week"? It looks like this guy had a nice idea, but was so impatient to tell the world that he ruined the experiment.
Encyclopaedia bias (Score:3, Insightful)
That may well be true; however, it would be equally naive to believe that a print encyclopaedia has perfect authority or presents an unbiased view. Ultimately, every human knowledge source is subject to error and bias, it's just that the academics commissioned by print media might be conveying theirs in a more fashion.
--
Try Nuggets [mynuggets.net], the question answering service for your mobile phone
Re:How is this different.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about another experiment? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're only using one source for your information, however, then you're not researching correctly.
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.
Re:And not in-depth either (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what exactly are you waiting for to improve the article?
Or perhaps you simply didin't care about it that much to begin with?
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.
And a tomato makes a bad hammer..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Main Entry: encyclopedia
Variant(s): also encyclopaedia
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin encyclopaedia course of general education, from Greek enkyklios + paideia education, child rearing, from paid-, pais child -- more at FEW
: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject
Britannica always knew their (traditional, dead tree) encyclopedia was aimed at kids, which is why it was always sold to parents AS A RESOURCE FOR THEIR CHILDREN.
The real problem here is using the same word, encyclopedia, to describe three utterly different things...
a/ traditional dead tree encyclopedia
b/ electronic (hyperlinked) encyclopedia on read only media
c/ wikipedia
Traditional dead tree stuff was of course read only, and absolute accuracy depended on many things, including cultural background and editorial integrity, as well as actual facts (where said facts were ascertainable) for example the traditional dead tree encyclopedias (that were all there was when I was attending school) would talk about a Christopher Columbus discovering America for our (English) Queen... no mention of him actually hailing from a smelly mediterrenean port or indeed Culumbia (or later New Amsterdam, etc (NY to you young punks)) and any entries about the East India Company will have similar cultural and editorial bias, non mention whatsoever will be made of the facts, that our (English) early trade envoy's gifts and personal manners were treated with richly deserved scorn... the silk brocade wearing maharaji using the proferred gifts of fine english tweed as animal blankets.
Being read only media, and being "authoritative" these complete fallacies presented as impartial facts.
Electronic encyclopedia such as Encarta are similarly read only, and similarly in the throes of cultural and editorial filtering, laid on top of any basic factual errors (such as the location of the normal locker observatory, to quote something close to home)
Wikipedia is completely different, it is not read only, it is not hampered by editorial policies or cultural prejudices.
Sure, this means assholes are free to enter bullshit as fact, but in just the same fashion as we are free to spoof an IP address or send out forged SYN packets, only the pond scum does it. Of course the pond scum will have every exuse in the book ranging from "I'm only doing it to test how good this is." to "Serves them right for not being as leet as me." however the underlying fact is the same, it is pond scum behaviour.
Pond scum behaviour is an inevitable part of the internet, it is never going to be stopped and it never should be attempted, because the co-operation of the sensible majority (especially the sensible majority with some real clout like sysadmins) have enough momentum and enough existing weapons of mass co-operation (eg usenet death threats for maladministered nntp servers) to keep the pond scum in the place that they themselves elect to live.
To blame wikipedia because some pond scum has the ability to make erroneous entries that are uncorrected in five whole days (wow, encarta still has errors that are fucking years old) in a FREE FUCKING RESOURCE is directly akin to blaming Tim B-L, Scott N, and the INN nntp server coding crew for usenet spam.
In short, such accusations are ONLY EVER MADE BY THE POND SCUM THEMSELVES.
There is of course a direct parallel to the rules of spammers (subscribe to the usenet abuse groups nanae etc if you don't know what I mean) which are
http://bruce.pennypacker.org/spamrules.html
No, the real test of the validity of Wikipedia is to choose a hot potato and compare the content with the "respected" outlets such as encarta and britannica, and see which one is actually living up to the TRUE ideal of an ENCYCLOpedia, which is to EDUCATE,
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
Not exactly a fair experiment... (Score:2, Insightful)
The changes were:
Layzie Bone (biographical page). I inserted "born 1973", but a quick Google search reveals that he was born in 1977.
Magni, from norse mythology. I said that he was commonly depicted wielding an axe or a spear. In fact, Magni was the only person other than Thor himself who could lift Thor's hammer, and Magni is commonly associated with that weapon. Interestingly, the fact about Thor's Hammer is in the Wikipedia entry (though they call it by the proper name, Mjollnir), yet nobody seemed to notice the incongruity that a god whose special power is lifting a hammer would be depicted with an axe or a spear.
Empuries, a Mediterranean town, I made the site of sadly lost Greek ruins. The Greek ruins are true enough, but they aren't lost, sadly or otherwise. This travel site helpfully informs us that Empuries has "lots of free parking close to the ruins" as well as a cafe and a museum at the archeological site.
Philipsburg, PA, became located at the junction of U.S. highway 233 and state route 503. Not U.S. highway 322 and state route 504, as most maps show.
Bernice Johnson Reagon, while apparently a prolific author, never wrote Georgia in Song. In fact, Amazon lists no such book by any author.
I don't see this as a great experiment. Obviously, pages in the Wikipedia that get more traffic will be corrected more quickly. As far as I can tell, none of these are exactly hot topics. A better experiment might include adding mistakes to pages that are more likely to be read by lots of people and then figuring out a relationship between general interest/importance of the entry and time until correction.
Obviously, if you pick an entry that only one person has ever worked on or looked at (I exaggerate slightly), it won't be corrected quickly.
Conjecture: time to correct = 1/severity (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a good test (Score:2, Insightful)
The test as it is applied here is not a good test. The items added are obscure enough that the time was too short for them to get caught. The results can only be significative if the wrong information is left there for weeks or months.
The only conclusion is that obscure fake facts are not caught within a couple of hours/days.
Markus
Try this, then (Score:3, Insightful)
But anyway, try this argument on for size: Individual wiki articles (and even the facts contained within them) evolve, just as organisms do. Good, factual data has a higher fitness quotient than do errrors and misinformation. Over long periods of time, the wiki content will tend towards truth.
Now, we could get into a whole other debate about what is "true", but I think that for the purposes of the wiki, truth can only be defined as that which a majority of editors agree upon.
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?
MOD PARENT SIDEWAYS (Score:2, Insightful)
It needs more eyes... and hands (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:surprising? (Score:3, Insightful)
often != always
Re:Censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
This assumes (a) that NPOV well-defined, and (b) that it's good.
If you look at their definition [wikipedia.org], it refers to presenting "all points of view." That doesn't really make sense. For instance, an article on geography doesn't need to present both the point of view that the earth is flat and the point of view that it's round.
I like Wikipedia. I contribute to Wikipedia. But I think it fundamentally fails when it comes to controversial topics. The "all" in "all points of view" really ends up meaning "all Wikipedians who care enough to put the article on their watchlists."
The original Nupedia concept probably would have had an easier time handling controversial topics. The problem was that it was too exclusive, and the process of getting an article put in it was too painful. So we're left with Wikipedia, which was meant to be just a fun project, and has ended up succeeding beyond all expectations. It's achieved that at the cost of not being able to effectively handle controversial topics. It doesn't mean Wikipedia is also a failure, it just means it has limitations. Working within those limitations, it's possible to do things like marking articles with an NPOV dispute warning (like these [wikipedia.org] articles).
It's not a matter of absolute success of absolute failure. On many topics, I find Wikipedia more useful than print encyclopedias. You just have to use the right tool for the job, and use critical thinking skills.
Re:I added an entry about myself (Score:4, Insightful)
This is to be expected.
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.
Math Nerd Arise! (Score:2, Insightful)
(ceterus parabus)
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.
Not a good experiment... (Score:2, Insightful)
I would like to see an experiment (with cooperation from Wiki) where:
Chances are: if nobody read it, it can't be fixed. The error never "existed". If it was, how many people were "fooled" before it was fixed? My guess is that the corrector would be one of the people who received the incorrect information would be the same ones to fix it once they found out!
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?
Re:oh please (Score:2, Insightful)
And this is different from the Encyclopoedia Brittanica how? It's just a question of where you get your biased rubbish. Anyone who relies on one source deserves what they get.
Re:If you repeat a lie often enough... (Score:2, Insightful)
The 'legitimate' news organizations pick it up and report it from there.
Yeah, because the liberal news organizations never slant their headlines and quotes, right?
Let me explain, legitimate is not equivalent to liberal. Just because a news organization is not liberal doesn't mean it's biased. Maybe you're used to biased media. Please go to www.foxnews.com, and report back with a biased news article. I'd like to read one of those.
Re:surprising? (Score:1, Insightful)
Bad experiment (Score:3, Insightful)
With that in mind, I'd rather seen an experiment that tries to determine how many times a page is viewed before it gets altered. I bet if one of the edits he had made were to introduce some sort of error into the database normalization page's explanation of third normal form, it would be a lot more likely to be noticed within two days.
Stil, shame on anyone who takes any encyclopedia or other reference book as unquestionable authority. Any collection of information that dense is going to be full of errors like made-up words [fun-with-words.com] and the like.
The Horror (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, if Wikipedia did not exist, think of all the damage done by millions of people lacking information.
Re:surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:surprising? (Score:3, Insightful)
But, in this heated ditcussion, who gives a shit, his guard has dropped, slip the knife in:
(I wonder how many typo's and spealing misteaks I'm going to spot after hitting submit?)Peer Review (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Horror (Score:3, Insightful)
More than the timespan of a mistake, IMO the bigger problem is the sheer number of mistakes there can be at any one given moment. Making the whole thing lose credibility.
Re:Part of the Problem (Score:1, Insightful)
Average Trustworthiness (Score:2, Insightful)
Like the others have said, the fact that someone can change minor details in articles is unimportant to the purpose of wikipedia. If you need authoritative information, get a primary source and get over it!
Re:oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:oh please (Score:2, Insightful)
You changed it [..]
That's one point why I don't like Wikipedia and it's also the cause of the problems mentioned in the article as well as in the comments in this thread - it looks too much like a real encyclopedia because there is only one article per keyword/topic, which is not (or shouldn't be) contradictory. You can't express a point of view differing from the opinion of the mass or the "average" opinion. Only one of the reasons why I prefer multiple articles per keyword as well as global moderation like on Everything2 [everything2.com].. (Combining the two systems would be the best, but the user system of E2 is probably too oppositional to the open wiki concept (The user system being vital for useful and fair moderation is another point..))
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.
Re:surprising? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd imagine it's a little more difficult to get a job at Britannica or Encarta and try that experiment, than it is to do the same thing with Wikipedia articles. Why don't you give it a shot, lemme know how it works out? I'll wait.
People keep pointing out that anyone can contribute to Wiki articles as though it's a good thing. To me, that's its primary fault.
It's also started contaminating other sites anyway. My main interest is history, and I poke around for historical stuff online as a hobby, much as I do it offline for academic purposes. One thing I've noticed in the past year or so is that a whole lot of history info, especially for classical history, has been replaced on other sites with word-for-word copies from Wikipedia articles, some of which are absolute, total bullshit [wikipedia.org] (compare with the pre-broken version [wikipedia.org].
Because of the idiot who decided to insert the incorrect information into this article, dozens of other sites not on Wiki are now carrying incorrect information that can't simply be fixed by anyone with an Internet connection. As well, that scale of error throws pretty much the rest of that section of the site into significant doubt.
-PS
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.
Re:If you repeat a lie often enough... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh really?
Pray tell, why are Rupert Murdoch's, Mellon Scaifes's, and Rev Moon's papers/media [arizona.edu] are so far to the right they make Bob Dole blush?
Ownership bias is quite real. In other countries its very common to have a "liberal" paper and a "conservative" paper all of whom are open with their bias. At least here in the states the alternative weeklies don't shy away from the fact that they have a liberal bent, but Fox News and the Washington Times and others still play the "we're just newsmakers without an agenda" card. Which is highly disingenious and leads to more dangerous beliefs than "al gore invented the internet." How about the millions who believe Saddam had a hand in 9/11?
Aids to judging the trustworthiness of an article (Score:2, Insightful)
Every article also has available its complete history -- the first version that was posted, and every subsequent change. You can look at any version, you can compare any two versions, and you can see who made each change. An article that's been edited by many different people is more likely to be reliable than one that's the work of only a few. You access this information by clicking on "Page history", also in the menu to the left of the article.
Incidentally, the next link down under "Page history" is "What links here". If you're not satisfied with the article you found, you may get what you need from other Wikipedia articles that link to that article. Of course, often the first article you reach has useful links to other Wikipedia articles or to external websites. Failing that, you can post a question on the Reference Desk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_d esk [wikipedia.org].
Re:WikiProject for Fact and Reference Checking (Score:4, Insightful)
Traditional encyclopedias are constrained in the amount of writers they can afford, the amount of research they can do and the amount of paper available for a single article. In a time where traditional encyclopedias are losing marketshare (thanks to internet, cdroms and other sources of information), cost savings are likely to put pressure on all three factors.
Wikipedia is a cumulative effort. If an article is not good, it can be fixed. If there are multiple views/interpretations on a topic, there is room to highlight both sides of the debate.
The longer the process goes on the better it becomes. Of course malicious people can insert information but sooner or later people will find out and fix it. You can put screening processes and peer reviews on wikipedia just like you can on a traditional encyclopedia.
Probably wikipedia's largest problem is not the process but the fact that it is accumulating information much faster than all other encyclopedias.
Now this guy has done something clever. He has made some small changes that would pass a first glance unless you already knew the facts. The problem is that he jumped to the wrong conclusion and never actually wondered how many people ever saw the changes. Since he only left the changes for 20 hours to max 5 days (!) and the articles do not exactly qualify as hot information, probably noone or at most a handful of people read the article. The changes obviously passed the vandalism procedures (for e.g. excessive changes in short periods of time) and nobody bothered to verify the information right away. The latter is actually the whole point of criticism. Wikipedia cannot be authorative because not all information is verified right away.
However, he misses the point. If brittanica has a mistake you might be tempted to write to the editor and maybe in a next edition it would be fixed. But most people probably don't. If you spot an error in wikipedia, you can just fix it. The more articles are referred to, the more authorative and informative they become. Especially the 'hot' articles on politics, famous people, etc are likely to be read, scrutinized and edited very often. Messing up 'empuries' is easy but try inserting false data under 'George Bush' and see how quickly that is corrected.
Re:oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
Another thing I thought of w.r.t wikipedia, if it becomes valid as a source of citations like a proper encyclopedia, what's to stop someone writing in what they want to prove, citing the article they've just written, and using it to 'prove' what they asserted? By the time someone has fixed the vandalism, they've already cited it, and it's as valid a citation as any.
Re:Sigh (Score:2, Insightful)
Damn Skippy! There have been many times on the good ol' /. where I've said to myself: "You know, I have nothing important to say, but since I'm a karma whore, I'm going to go invent a wikipedia link to back up my unfounded, erroneous point of view and get modded insightful!"
And there you have it. I solve all my arguments here by changing wikipedia to agree with me. And don't argue, I'm always right. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Your sig (Score:4, Insightful)
Atheism cannot be a "religious" stance by definition:
No god or deity = not religious. It could be a state of belief, as opposed to a state of concept or idea (the chief difference between ideas and beliefs is that ideas change according to new empirical evidence, beliefs do not), but your attempt to equivocate the atheistic stance by purely semantic means does nothing to enhance the debate...it only muddies the waters of the debate.
I fully understand what you're saying here, but the definition I provided above clearly says that the set of deities must include at least one. Therefore your own statement here shows the fallacy of engaging in a semantic argument--you weren't able to write a short post without contradicting yourself.
I point this out because it's so easy to discuss philosohpical topics such as these and descend into an uninteresting semantic debate about what we ought to call things rather than what things are. If you reply to this post and insist that you're going to change the definition of the term religious or atheist to suit your needs, that does nothing to convince others of your point; though they may even choose to adopt your non-standard definitions, there's no way of ascertaining whether they've grasped your underlying point. The hope in most semantic attacks is that the change in wording will simply find its way into the subtext of future conversations and change people's minds that way. Sort of an underhanded approach, which is why I personally detest such attacks by language. Political correctness is a great example of what I'm talking about.
So, I'll address the point underlying all your wordplay...that might get us somewhere. Is it possible, do you think, that atheists might be divided into two categories: those that hold atheism as an idea and those that hold it as a belief? The idea atheists might very well hold that there is no god, but this is not incontrovertible fact...much in the way one "believes" in a scientific theory. For instance, I "believe" in Newton's model of gravity--but only insofar as it has been shown to correspond with nature. Should I need to move into the realm addressed by General Relativity, then I would not "believe" in Newton's model for that purpose. Do I think that Einstein's model is "true"? Well, no, of course not...the model hasn't shown that it corresponds exactly to reality in every situation (I'm not sure how it could meet such a high standard, either).
So, one might be atheistic in this sense. A subtle difference between a scientific theory and holding atheism in the same way, however, exists and must be addressed. And this difference is embodied by your statement:
This statement is absurd. It is silly to judge what someone would do or think in the presence of a condition that is simply impossible. In this case, "if he were given a logical proof that a god must exist" is the impossible condition. No one who has done any study of philosophy or religion would accept this as something that could actually come to pass--in other words, it is not in the set of things that could occur in this universe.
So, pinning your argument that atheism is a belief system much like religion on this statement is a major flaw in your reasoning. I might say your belief that hippogriffs do not exist is flawed because you are so prej
accuracy depends on field (Score:3, Insightful)
My impression is that the Wikipedia is pretty accurate in areas that attract people with real expertise. Even if some contributors have a bias or are ignorant or mistaken on certain points, after a while the article gets to be pretty good through collaborative editing. So it tends to be good on subjects that techies find interesting and are knowledgable about. The problematic areas are ones in which the contributors have an interest but lack real expertise. The collaborative editing process doesn't work very well here because there is no one involved who actually knows the subject, or the real experts are a small minority among the contributors and are not able to have much influence. Topics that are particularly likely to be problematic are those about which some geeks are enthusiastic but not truly knowledgable.
In my own area of linguistics, for example, I find that articles on formal topics, e.g. "context-free grammar", are generally good, while articles on historical linguistics are often pretty bad. This reflects the fact that techies tend to have real knowledge in areas related to formal linguistics, e.g. mathematics and computer science, while historical linguistics is a subject that lots of people find interesting but few really know much about.
Re:Your sig (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you being purposely obtuse? I'm an agnostic and I've always thought atheism was a disbelief in the existence of god(s).
Quit trying to reform atheism.
You are also in denial: there is a whole world (i.e., centuries) of thought developed around the notion of atheism. Huxley called it one way (my way) and the Christian Establishment lumped us agnostics in with the atheists. You are following their path, only your intent is different: the reformation of atheism.
Re:surprising? (Score:4, Insightful)
Some would argue that, if anything, as the number of mistakes relative to the whole shrinks, the source of information becomes less useful because you're relying on it more and maintaining less of a cautious attitude. When you bump into one of those rare mistakes it could be more costly than an encyclopedia you used with a jaundiced eye. You integrate that faulty information without having checked it because so many times in the past accurate information you've veted has passed muster, so you no longer bother.
Many Sources of Error (Score:3, Insightful)
(1) History is written by the winners, so the only window we have into the past is often from the perspective of the victors. Whether or not history is true as we believe it to be is unproven and unprovable.
(2) Much of our knowledge is incomplete. The gaps are filled in with speculation or theory. New information is discovered and new theories are formed continually.
(3) Everyone is biased. In a very real way, each of us lives in his own world, with his own perspective, biases, and beliefs. So what is intrinsically "true" to one can be just as completely "false" to another.
(4) There are whole areas of knowledge about which we are completely ignorant. For example, before the 20th century, "quantum mechanics" was a completely unknown, completely unanticipated field of inquiry, one which has had totally unexpected consequences in many other areas.
(5) People often lie just to improve their status. There are many examples of accepted biographies (even autobiographies) being turned on their heads by later fact-checking or contradictory accounts.
(6) Experts often disagree about the causes or significance of data, especially experimental data. Contradictory theories may co-exist for decades before a majority agrees on one, and even then a vocal minority holding a completely opposing view may persist for many years, maybe even forever.
In a nutshell, most of what we call "knowledge" is simply a majority consensus about what constitutes "reality". Real, concrete "truths" are few and far between. The best we can sometimes hope for are "rules of thumb" that work well enough to get us through each day without being eaten or run over.
DON'T!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
No harm is done if you know more than you see in an article and you don't share. But if you purposely include false information... that's a Bad Thing[TM].
Experiments like descibed and similar are as UNETHICAL as tests on human subjects who don't know they are being experimented on. As much as they seem needed to prove a point sometimes, they create a precedent that can only cause harm.
Better not to know than to have wrong info (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope you are joking here? What is worse: not having the information, and looking for it somewhere else, or having wrong info that you trust? No Wikipedia bashing intended, but your statement doesn't hold.
Z
Re:If you repeat a lie often enough... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, if the media is so biased to the left, how do you explain Fox News, Rush Limbough, Bill O'Reilly, etc. It is a well known fact, for instance, that the radio is dominated by conservatives. This is all described very humourously in Al Franken's book which I highly recommend.
Well Al Franken is an inflammatory imbicile.
Regardless, with the exception of Fox News (which I'll conceded is generally concervative), all of the media venues you speak of openly state that they are opinion pieces.
And that's the real issue here. It's not that people are expected to limit their speech to the point of mediocracy. That's why we have the first amendment. I don't think anybody would have a problem with Dan Rather telling us his political views in an independently published book, but what I would have a problem with is him sneaking said beliefs in what is supposed to be an objective forum like broadcast Journalism.
I think the real problem is large groups of people, on both sides, (but I believe MORE on the liberal side) think that they are enlightened. That they know what's best for the people, even if the people can't see that for themselves. So instead of laying out the facts and letting people decide for themselves, they skew support for their views through what basically amounts to trickery.
-Grym
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.
Re:oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WikiProject for Fact and Reference Checking (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you Wikipedia disciples have missed the point. RANDOM ANONYMOUS INEXPERT people can alter the information in the "encyclopedia" at any time.
There is no Free or Open Source Software project that does this. They all have gatekeepers of some kind. Can you imagine how horrible the Linux kernel would be if random users could check in code without asking? What if random users with barely two weeks into an introductory programming class decided to hack on GNOME or KDE? Of course most errors (but not all) won't be subsequently pushed out to the rest of the users, because the compiler or the testers will throw them out. But Wikipedia isn't software. Mistakes in the information WILL get pushed out to the other users.
I don't expect my authoritative sources to be error free, but I do expect them to be authoritative. You cannot do that without restricting membership to authoritative sources.
Re:The Horror (Score:3, Insightful)
So all encyclopaedia articles on famous scientists should include a note as to how many papers they've published, measured in feet-when-put-together (that well known SI unit)??
I'll give you a hint: (volume of papers == importance of author) only where university administrators are concerned. Generally, quantity != quality. (Not that I'm deriding McClintock, mind you, only your method for judging her scientific impact
Wikipedia has the advantage of being written by enthusiasts.
And enthusiasts are always highly impartial and never indulge in polemics, so they're by far the best qualified
Re:Your sig (Score:3, Insightful)
As any philosopher can tell you, proving a negative in most situations is not possible. That is why the burden of proof is generally on those on the positive side of an argument.
For instance, let's say I claim that I can fly. You claim I cannot. I ask you to prove that I can not fly, or else you must accept that I can. There is no way for you to prove I can't fly. You can even push me off a building, and, if I survive (no matter how injured), I can simply claim that I choose not to fly, but I could have.
Of course, just because I choose not to prove that I can fly, does not mean that I cannot, in fact, fly. Its just that for my claim to have merit, I must be prepared to prove it. In other words, those who believe something are free to believe as they wish, proof or no, but those who want others to believe as they do should be prepared to provide proof.
(None of this was, per se, about religion, just addressing the parent and his "prove a negative" request)
Re:Your sig (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I can't.
I also cannot prove:
4 Elephants support the world.
The answer to life the universe and everything is 42.
Issac Asimov cloned himeself.
My TV is alive.
Grass is an alien lifeform.
OT: 'Nail me to a cross test'? (Score:2, Insightful)
The "existance of evil" is often used as a proof of the non-existance of God, but it only "disproves" the existance of a omnipotents and omnibenevolent christian god. It cannot disprove any of the pagan gods who are not omnipotent (and frequently not omnibenevolent either).
In general it *is* very hard to prove a negative. I don't believe in unicorns, but I cannot prove they don't exist. If I checked every inch of earth and did not find them, it is still possible that they are living on mars, or
even another galaxy.
Re:people arent skeptical enough (Score:4, Insightful)
The following are my personal positions and (mostly) the positions of the left and the democratic party as a whole.
1 - Saddam Hussein is a bad man.
2 - The world is likely a better place now that Saddam is out of power.
3 - Iraq did not, at the time of invasion, present any form of clear and present danger to the United States.
4 - Iraq did not, at time of invasion, possess weapons of mass destruction
5 - The United States invaded Iraq under the pretext that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and that these weapons constituted a clear and present danger to the United States.
6 - Since these weapons did not exist and the threat was therefore not present, the invasion was under false pretexts.
7 - Taking your country to war on false pretexts is a bad thing
8 - George W. Bush took the country to war on false pretexts.
Now.... make sure you read and understand all of the above points. I'm a liberal, I support our troops. I know we can't just leave Iraq right now. I think the world is a better place now that Saddam is behind bars. I'm glad (after the fact) that we removed him from power. I'd have been a lot happier about it if the President hadn't deceived the public to get there.